| | | | |
This photograph was taken at the first Bilderberg meeting at Prince Bernhard's
Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland in 1954. Hugh Gaitskell is in the
far corner of the room looking rather sceptical and you can just see him
scratching his chin.
Another more limited photo of the same room which includes chairman Prince Bernhard is here
THE ANGLO-AMERICAN BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER,
A WORLD FEDERAL UNION CALLED - the UNITED STATES OF MAN (originally entitled UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN) - by Clarence K. Streit, 1941, author also of UNION NOW
This work, at the outset of Hitlers rise, led to the establishment of the United Nations and its relevance to post-9/11 geo-political foreign policy by the governments of the United States and Great Britain is evident--the precise formula being executed by Bush and Blair governments!
UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN was Streits second edition and expanded version of UNION NOW, which was widely distributed and read during WWII in America and England, what George Orwell called this much-discussed book.
Now more obscure, this publisher, upon discovery, saw immediately the relevance of this book to post-9/11 events and thought it needed new distribution to warn of this master blueprint for Novus Ordo Secloruma new world order. The relevance of UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN can be readily observed by the Bush-Blair response and Anglo-American governments coalition to launch a global War on Terrorism to reorder the world after September 11, 2001 under the guise of establishing democracy, peace, and freedom in the world.
NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM: PAX AMERICANA (Union Now with Britain)
Read this historical treatise and see how the events of 9/11 have accelerated this blueprint for an American-led new world order!
"Out of these troubled times [Iraq/Kuwait conflict], our fifth objective -- a new world order can emerge: a new era...We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders." September 11, 1990 - Iraq Speech by President George H. W. Bush
"Our mission is clear: to rid the world of evil" - Pres. George W. Bush, post-Sept. 11, 2001
"Out of the shadow of this evil [9/11], should emerge lasting good... This is a moment to seize...let us re-order this world around us." - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Oct. 2, 2001 (BBC)
Nato=Nazi - link four - click here for next
Lobster is a six-monthly magazine/journal devoted to parapolitics, uncovering hidden forces that govern the way we live. Typical articles include: 'The CIA, drugs and the media', Jane Affleck's web survey, 'the Rockefeller UFO initiative'. It is an independently published by the editor and needs all the support it can get. The following article has been used with permission, if you like what you read do please consider taking out Lobster's modest subscription.
The annual cost is between six and nine pounds stirling depending on where you live. Postal address and email at the bottom of the article.
Despite their reputation for 'empiricism', British academics have tended to treat political power by means of abstract concepts rather than empirical information about the actions of determinate individuals and groups (e.g. Giddens, 1984, 1985; Scott, 1986). After a brief efflorescence of empirical studies of the so-called 'Establishment' in the early 1960s, sociologists in Britain became diverted from empirical investigation of power, as the study of national and international power-structures became conducted under the aegis of increasingly abstract theoretical categories derived from Marxism, and in particular by a wave of concepts based on Poulantzas's 'structuralist' critique of Miliband, and was followed by ever more esoteric discussions of the 'theory' of the state (e.g. Jessop, 1990), culminating in the hegemony of a post-Marxist version of Gramsci's conception of 'hegemony' - in which 'struggle' is posited without any identifiable human beings as its active protagonists, and with the stakes reduced to ideas rather than concrete interests.
This was in sharp contrast with the USA, where the impetus of C. Wright Mills's pioneering study of the network of interests involved in the Cold War (Mills, 1956) was continued by a flourishing group of scholars. There has been nothing in Britain of comparable scope or detail to the work conducted in the USA by G. W. Domhoff, Thomas Dye, Mark Mizruchi or Noam Chomsky, etc.
The present article is concerned with one specific facet of American power-structure research which, I believe, has important implications for the study of power in the UK. This is the subject of power-elite networks and forums, conceptualised as arenas for the conduct of intra-capitalist and inter-corporate strategic debates and long-range social planning, from which wider 'democratic' interference is carefully excluded.
The particular institution about which I will present information is the so-called 'Bilderberg Group', which is an interesting example of this kind of power-elite forum. It is one among a number of little-publicised institutions which have played an important role providing a means for debates and discussions to take place amongst different capitalist groups and different national governments over long-term planning issues and, especially, in Co-ordinating strategic policy at an international level. Other such bodies on this trans-national scale include the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the USA, with its UK sister organisation, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (otherwise known simply as Chatham House) and the Trilateral Commission (which itself grew out of Bilderberg meetings and has been essentially a more globalist version of the latter, since it incorporates Japanese representatives). Each of these bodies will be mentioned in what follows.
One of the 'functions' such institutions appear to serve is that of 'mediating' between the economic interests of private capital and the requirement of a general interest on the part of the capitalist class as a whole. I shall suggest that much of the theorising about the 'state' in the tradition of structural Marxism since the 1970s has confused this relation between capital and national governments, owing to the tendency to reify the abstraction called the state' and posit it as enjoying a virtual autonomy vis-à-vis capital; whereas the empirical evidence lends more support to the rather hastily dismissed (and often grotesquely caricatured) model called 'instrumentalism.
To anticipate what will be said later, I believe that one of the key assumptions often made by structural Marxists, namely that the capitalist class is always divided into competing fractions which have no mechanisms for co-ordination other than the state, is not empirically sustainable. Part of this misconception, it could be said, derives from an over-literal understanding of the concept of the 'market' as constituting the only social relation amongst different fractions of capital. At least as far as the very large, and above all, the international (or as we would say in today's jargon, the global) corporations are concerned, this is definitely not the case: very sophisticated organs do exist whereby these capitalist interests can and do hammer out common lines of strategy. Bilderberg is one of these mechanisms.
As the second world war drew to a close, the capitalist class in Western Europe was under severe threat from an upsurge of working class radicalism, the management of which required a strategy more sophisticated than conventional repression, and the first steps were taken, by political panes of both left and right, to develop 'corporatist' programmes based on a kind of national protectionism. By contrast, in the USA, the war had brought to dominance an internationally-oriented capitalist class who saw very clearly that their interests lay in a thorough 'liberalisation' (1) of the world market, abolition of tariffs etc.. Only the false wisdom of hindsight could make the eventual Atlantic Alliance system that emerged by 1950 seem preordained by 'objective' historical forces. Indeed, so used have we become to hearing phrases like 'American imperialism' and witnessing US interventions throughout the world that we can forget just how difficult it was for this internationally oriented fraction of the American capitalist class to impose its agenda upon the US state: the deep-rooted tendency of American political culture has always been what Europeans call Isolationist' and it took extensive political work to drag the Americans into these foreign entanglements. In this paper I will not be looking in any detail at how these interests influenced the US government during and after the Second World War, but rather at how they succeeded in effecting the integration of the Western European capitalist class into a new Atlantic alliance system
The period 1945-50 is highly complex and debate still rages over the origin and nature of the 'Cold War': for example over the degree to which the US was acting offensively or defensively against a (real or imagined) Soviet threat, as well as over the relation between the external or geopolitical aspect of the Cold War on the one hand and its domestic, ideological or 'class' aspect. And die recent work of. Alan Milward, for example, has thrown into question many of the received assumptions about the causes and consequences of the 'supranational' institutions created in Europe in the aftermath of the war (Milward, 1984 and 1994; Anderson, 1996).
The beginnings of a clarification of these events were made with the pioneering analysis of Kees Van der Pijl, in conjunction with other Dutch Marxist scholars (Fennema, Overbeek etc.) ten years ago, together with the detailed empirical work of US power-researchers (e.g. the journal Critical Sociology). With the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent 'coming out' of veteran anti-Communists now prepared to open up some of their dubious accomplishments to outside scrutiny (Peter Coleman, Brian Crozier e.g.), more direct documentary evidence of the scope and intensity of covert US involvement in European politics in the post-war period is now available.
The official version of the history of the creation of the Atlantic system reads like the 'lives and teachings of saints (Milward, 1992). in these school textbook accounts, each of the pillars of the post-war world order has its great founding father, whose photographs invariably appear in magazine articles:
* the IMF and the World Bank are the work of Keynes
* European economic recovery is the work of General Marshall
* NATO is the work of Ernest Bevin, and
* the European Community is the work of Jean Monnet (with his faithful discipline Schuman)
These are not just myths; they are, in intelligence parlance, more like 'cover stories'.
The Marshall Plan is named after the speech on June 5 1947 by US Secretary of State Marshall, which invited European countries to join in a co-operative plan for economic reconstruction, with explicit requirements for trade liberalisation and increases in productivity. Over the next ten months there emerged the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, which set up the Economic Co-operation Agency (ECA) to administer the European Recovery Programme (ERP) - the so-called 'Marshall Aid' - which gave $13 billion in aid to 16 western European states. In four years, the ECA was superseded by the Mutual Security Agency (MSA) in 1951 which in turn was transformed into the Foreign Operations Agency (FOA) in 1954, later the International Co-operation Agency (ICA) in 1955 and finally the Agency for International Development (AID) in 196l (Carew 1987 p. 6ff). it is generally recognised that this aid had a decidedly militaristic purpose, being essentially a prerequisite for the development of NATO. (2)
It is less generally acknowledged, however, that this unprecedented exercise of international generosity (dubbed by Churchill the 'most unsordid act in history') served direct economic purposes for the internationally oriented US corporations which promoted it. William Clayton, for example, the Under-secretary for Economic Affairs, whose tour of Europe and letters sent back to Washington played a key role in preparing the plan, and who pushed it through Congress, personally profited to the tune of $700,000 a year; and his own company, Anderson, Clayton & Co. secured $10 million of Marshall, Plan orders up to the summer of 1949. (Schuman 1954 p. 240). General Motors similarly got $5.5 million worth of orders between July 1950 and 1951 (14.7% of the total) and they Ford Motor Company got $1 million (4.2% of the total).
The origins of the Marshall Plan are in fact to be found in the 'War and Peace Study Groups' instituted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1939. (For the details see Shoup & Minter p. 117 ff). on December 6 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation granted the Council nearly $50,000 to finance the first year of the project. Well over 120 influential individuals (academics and business leaders), at least 5 cabinet levels departments and 12 separate government agencies, bureaux or offices were involved in this. There were altogether 362 meetings and no less than 682 separate documents produced. I find it frankly astonishing that virtually none of the British academic scholarship on this period even acknowledges the existence of the CFR, let alone the War and Peace Study Groups. Evidence is surely required to show that they had no influence, if that is what scholars believe.
The plan which Marshall presented in his speech had already been outlined in the proposals of a CFR study group of 1946 headed by the lawyer Charles M. Spofford and David Rockefeller, entitled 'Reconstruction in Western Europe'; and the specific proposal for unifying the Western European coal and steel basin as a bulwark against the USSR was made by John Foster Dulles in January 1947.
To trace the origin of the movement for European unification, however, requires that we go back to May 8 1946 and an address given at Chatham House by a Pole named Joseph Retinger. In this talk he outlined a plan for a federal Europe in which the states would relinquish part of their sovereignty. At the time, Retinger was secretary general of the Independent League for European Co-operation (ILEC), run by the Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland. During the war Retinger worked closely with van Zeeland and other exile leaders who would become prominent in the Bilderberg network, (including Paul Rijkens, whom we will meet again shortly). (3) Out of these connections was born in 1942-3 the Benelux customs union, a kind of prototype of the Common Market.
The ideas adumbrated by Retinger were not new: there is a whole history of such projects for European unification and for even larger global schemes. One might just note here the assumption of the need for a 'great power' status as well as the almost taken-for-granted racism which informed Retinger's thinking:
'The end of the period during which the white man spread his activities over the whole globe saw the Continent itself undergoing a process of internal disruption........ there are no big powers left in continental Europe....... [whose] inhabitants after all, represent the most valuable human element in the world.' (Retinger 1946, p. 7)
Shortly after this speech, Retinger was invited by the US ambassador, Averell Harriman, to the USA to secure American support for ILEC.
'I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians. Mr Leffingwell, senior partner in J. P. Morgan's [bank], Nelson and David Rockefeller, Alfred Sloan [chair of General Motors], Charles Hook, President of the American Rolling Mills Company, Sir William Wiseman, [British SIS and] partner in Kuhn Loeb [New York investment bank], George Franklin and especially my old friend Adolf Berle Jr [CFR], were all in favour, and Berle agreed to lead the American section [of ILEC]. John Foster Dulles also agreed to help. (Pomian 1972, p. 212)
Thus was formed the European Movement (whose first congress at the Hague in 1948 is- the origin of the Council of Europe), which received substantial contributions from US government secret funds as well as private sources via the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE). The names mentioned above are significant in the present context: Leffingwell preceded John McCloy and David Rockefeller as CFR chair, 1946-53, and had been a CFR director since 1927, while Franklin was executive director of the CFR 1953-7 and was later a Trilateral Commission Co-ordinator: also, incidentally an in-law of the Rockefellers.
US funding for the European Movement extended beyond 1952, most of it going to the European Youth Campaign, initiated by John McCloy, whose own career virtually personifies the Atlantic ruling class as a whole: a corporate lawyer of relatively humble origins, he became, through his contacts at Harvard, assistant Secretary of War 1941-45 and first President of the World Bank (IBRD), which he revamped to suit the interests of Wall Street; and then US High Commissioner for Germany 1949-52 (where, among other things, he enabled Krupp to regain control of his steel companies, advising on the establishment of the Krupp-Stiftung, modelled on the Ford Foundation - he was connected to Adenauer through his German wife, whose sister married Lewis Douglas, J. P. Morgan financier and later US ambassador to Britain), after which he became a director of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Ford Foundation in 1953. He was also an active member of the Bilderberg Group, becoming chair of the Council on Foreign Relations itself.
As for ACUE, its chair was William Donovan (who ran OSS - forerunner of the CLA during the war) and its vice-chair was Allen Dulles (who was a leading figure in the CFR War and Peace Study Group during the early part of the war, and later the director of the CIA); and it was run in Europe by another CIA executive, Thomas W. Braden.
'The Treaty of Rome , which brought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at Bilderberg meetings.' (George McGhee, former US ambassador to West Germany)
'Bilderberg' takes its name from the hotel, belonging to Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, near Arnhem, where, in May 1954 the first meeting took place of what has ever since been called the Bilderberg Group. While the name persisted, its meetings are held at different locations. Prince Bernhard himself (who, incidentally, was actually German not Dutch) was chair until 1976 when he was forced to resign because of the Lockheed bribery scandal. The possible significance of this group may be gleaned from the status of its participants: the membership comprises those individuals who would, on most definitions, be regarded as members of the 'ruling class' in Western Europe and North America-In particular, the conferences brought together important figures in most of the largest international corporations with leading politicians and prominent intellectuals (in both academia and journalism).
Moreover, virtually all the European institutions we take for granted today, or treat as if they 'emerged' as a matter of course, from the ECSC, EEC and Euratom down to the present European Union, were conceived, designed and brought into existence through the agency of the people involved in Bilderberg.
What Gill has referred to, with disarming brevity, as its 'almost completely secretive' character (Gill 1990, p. 129) is neither incidental nor superficial but integral to its functioning. It is essential that these discussions be kept out of the public sphere. The lengths to which the organisers go are quite astonishing. An entire hotel is taken over in advance (existing guests being moved out) and a whole caravanserai, including special catering staff and armed security guards, descend on the site several days in advance. I recommend the amusing account by Robert Eringer - to my knowledge the only journalistic investigation yet conducted (Eringer 1980). The maintenance of this secrecy has been remarkably effective. In 1967, Cecil King, then chair of the International Publishing Corporation (at the time the press group with the largest circulation in the UK) and chair of the Newspaper Proprietors Association, formally requested his fellow proprietors to see to it that 'on no account should any report or even speculation about the content of the conferences be printed' (quoted in Sklar 1980, p. 178).
On one of the few occasions when Bilderberg meetings were mentioned in a major British newspaper, the outcome was quite interesting. In the 'Lombard' column of the Financial Times, C. Gordon Tether wrote on May 6 1975: 'If the Bilderberg Group is not a conspiracy of some sort, it is conducted in such a way as to give a remarkably good imitation of one.' In a column written almost a year later, for the March 3 l976 edition, Tether wrote: 'The Bilderbergers have always insisted upon clothing their comings and goings in the closest secrecy. Until a few years back, this was carried to such lengths that their annual conclave went entirely unmarked in the world's press. In the more recent past, the veil has been raised to the extent of letting it be known that the meetings were taking place. But the total ban on the reporting of what went on has remained in force....Any conspiratologist who has the Bilderbergers in his sights will proceed to ask why it is that, if there is so little to hide, so much effort is devoted to hiding it.'
This column never appeared: it was censored by the Financial Times editor Mark Fisher (himself a member of the Trilateral Commission), and Tether was finally dismissed from the 'Lombard' column in August 1976.
It is important at the outset to distinguish the active, on-going membership from the various people who are occasionally invited to attend. Many of those invited to come along, perhaps to report on matters pertaining to their expertise, have little idea there is a formally constituted group at all, let alone one with its own grand agenda. Hence the rather dismissive remarks by people like sixties media guru Marshall McLuhan, who attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1969 in Denmark, that he was 'nearly suffocated at the banality and irrelevance,' describing them as 'uniformly nineteenth century minds pretending to relate to the twentieth century'. Another of those who have attended, Christopher Price, then Labour MP for Lewisham West, found it 'all very fatuous.... icing on the cake with nothing to do with the cake.' (Eringer 1980, p. 26). Denis Healey, on the other hand, who was in from the beginning and later acted as British convenor, says that 'the most valuable [meetings] to me while I was in opposition were the Bilderberg Conferences'. (Healey 1990, p. 195)
Bilderberg from the beginning has been administered by a small core group, constituted since 1956 as a steering committee, consisting of a permanent chair, a US chair, European and North American secretaries and a treasurer. Invitations are 'only sent to important and generally respected people who through their special knowledge or experience, their personal contacts and their influence in national and international circles can further the aims set by Bilderberg.' (Retinger, cited in Sklar p. 168)
John Pomian, Retinger's secretary observed that:
'...during the first 3 or 4 years the all-important selection of participants was a delicate and difficult task. This was particularly so as regards politicians. It was not easy to persuade the top office holders to come Retinger displayed great skill and an uncanny ability to pick out people who in a few years time were to accede to the highest offices in their respective countries today there are very few figures among governments on both sides of the Atlantic who have not attended at least one of these meetings.' (Pomian, pp. 254-5)
The Bilderberg discussions are organised on the principle of reaching consensus rather than through formal resolutions and voting. Such is the influence and standing of the active members that, if consensus for action is arrived at, one might expect this to be carried out and the resulting decision to be implemented in the West as a whole. But the exact position of the group, and that of other such groups, is only discernible by a close scrutiny of the specific careers and connections of the individual participants. Here, one has to say that social theorists seem convinced of the irrelevance of this kind of information, which would be called 'prosopographic' (i.e. data pertaining to concrete individuals, which companies they represent, their family connections etc.). This is somewhat contradictory, of course, because in their every-day roles, social theorists are just as interested in this kind of information as anyone else, and display a keen sense of its political relevance when it comes to conducting their own careers: but it has it nonetheless become almost a matter of principle to denounce use of this kind of data in social science itself. This tendency seems to come from a reification of the concept of 'roles' (as if these were real rather than constructs) and possibly from a functionalist assumption that social systems are subject to laws; with concrete human actors having no significance in shaping outcomes.
The initiative for the first convocation came from Joseph Retinger, in conjunction with Paul Rijkens, President of Unilever. Retinger has already been introduced; and the significance of Unilever needs to be examined briefly. Unilever is one of the largest and most powerful multinational corporations in the world and one of the top European capitalist companies. In the 1950's the advisory directors of Unilever were as follows (and I'm drawing attention to the links with the Rotterdam Bank and Philips, the electrical firm):
· H.M. Hirschfield: also on the board of Philips and Rotterdam Bank and with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs during the war, and after it Commissioner for the Marshall Plan in the Netherlands;
· K.P. Van der Mandel, also on the board of Rotterdam Bank;
· Paul Rijkens: also on the board of Rotterdam Bank;
· H.L. Wolterson: also chair of Philips and on the board of Heldring and Pearson (linked with the Rotterdam Bank);
· P S.F Otten: also President of Philips (and married to a member of the Philips family)
One of the unusual features of Unilever is its bi-national structure (Stokman et al, 1985): it is a jointly-owned AngloDutch company, with a 50/r0 structure and a unitary board. This was a very useful device during the war, when operations could be shifted easily from the Netherlands to the UK. Philips had a similar arrangement under a Dutch law called the Corvo Law, whereby in an emergency it could divide itself into two parts, which it did when the Germans invaded: one with its HQ in Germany and the other American. Both these parts got large military contracts during the war, playing a role on both sides (Aaronovitch 1961, pp. 110-11). Unilever's financial advisers are the US investment bank Lazard Freres, which handles the private financial affairs of many of the world's wealthy families, including the Agnellis of Fiat. (See Koenig, 1990, Reich. 1983, Business Week June 18 1984).
Unilever's chief adviser on international affairs was David Mitrany, whose book, A Working Peace Svstem, published in 1943, secured him this post. (He also worked for Chatham House). it was Mitrany who coined the term 'functionalism' to refer to the strategy of supra-national integration through a series of sectoral processes of internationalisation, designed to set in motion an autonomous logic, making inevitable further integration and ultimately making national states obsolete (Groom and Taylor p. 125 ff.). In the post-war period there were three basic models for European union: alongside the 'functionalists' (in this sense), were the 'inter-governmentalists' (e.g. Spaak) and the 'federalists' (e.g. Monnet himself). In the 1960s the functionalists used the slogan 'Atlantic Partnership' as the framework for the integration or synchronisation of US and European interests.
The immediate chain of events leading to the setting up of the first conference was as follows. Prince Bernhard set off for the USA in 1952 to visit his old friend Walter Bedell Smith, director of the newly-formed CIA. Smith put the organisation of the American end into the hands of Charles D. Jackson (special assistant for psychological warfare to the US President), who appointed John S. Coleman (president of the Burroughs Corporation. and a member of the Committee for a National Trade Policy), who in turn briefly became US chair of Bilderberg.
Charles Jackson was president of the Committee for a Free Europe (forerunner of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) whose extensive operations financing and organising anti-Communist social democratic political intellectuals has only recently been fully documented (see Coleman 1989); and ran the CIA-financed Radio Free Europe in Germany. Earlier he had been publisher of Fortune magazine and managing director of Time/Life, and during the war was deputy head of psychological warfare for Eisenhower. At the time of Bernhard's visit he was working with a committee of businessmen on both sides of the Atlantic which approved the European Payments Union.
It was thus a European initiative, and its aim was, in official bland language, to 'strengthen links' between Western Europe and the USA. A selected list of people to be invited to the first conference was drawn up by Retinger, with Prince Bernhard and Rijkens, from the European countries of NATO plus Sweden. The resulting group consisted of the Belgian and Italian prime ministers, Paul van Zeeland and Alcide de Gasperi (CDU), from France both the right wing prime minister Antoine Pinay and the Socialist leader Guy Mollet; diplomats like Pietro Quaroni of Italy and Panavotis Pipinelis of Greece; top German corporate lawyer Rudolf Miller and the industrialist Otto Wolff von Amerongen and the Danish foreign minister Ole Bjorn Kraft (publisher of Denmarks top daily newspaper); and from England came Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell from the Labour Party, Robert Boothby from the Conservative Party, Sir Oliver Franks from the British state, and Sir Colin Gubbins, who had headed the Special Operations Executive (SOL) during the war.
On the American side, the members of the first Bilderberg assembly included:
· George Ball, who was head of Lehman Brothers, a former high State Department official, where he was architect of the policy of Atlantic Partnership, and later member of the Trilateral Commission. Ball was closely associated with Jean Monnet, owing to his work as legal counsel for the ECSC and the French delegation to the Schuman Plan negotiations.
· David Rockefeller was the key American member of Bilderberg. Space only permits the briefest sketch of his direct economic and political involvements: head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, member of the Business Council, the US council of the International Chamber of Commerce, and, of course, the founder of the Trilateral Commission.
· Dean Rusk: US Secretary of State 1961-69, earlier President of the Rockefeller Foundation 1952-60, having succeeded John Foster Dulles, himself an earlier Secretary of State and - this is not at all a coincidence - a close personal friend of Jean Monnet whom he had first met at Versailles in 1918 as well as of Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State and the true author of the Marshall Plan.
The final list was 67. Since then, the group enlarged somewhat, but the steering group remained the same size. (4)
After Retinger's death in 1960, the role of secretary was taken over by E. H. van der Beugel, who had headed the Dutch bureau for the Marshall Plan and later became president of KLM airlines and the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. After the resignation of Prince Bernhard, the role of chair was taken by British ex-prime minister Lord Home.
The status of the group and its meetings is ostensibly 'private'. Gill names it simply 'a private international relations council', but nothing could be more misleading than this name private, unless in its sense of secret When political leaders gather together with a view to arriving at consensus, in conjunction with leaders of industry and finance and press magnates and leading journalists, then this is not the same kind of thing as an assembly of ordinary private citizens. The vocabulary of pluralist political science ('lobbies', 'non-governmental organisations' etc.) systematically distorts the actual power relations at work in these different kinds of associations. It is even questionable whether Bilderberg meetings are really 'private' in the legal sense of non-governmental. Robert Eringer, for example, having received an official reply that 'government officials attend in a personal and not an official capacity', found that in fact officials had attended Bilderberg conferences at government expense and in their official capacity. The British Foreign Office responded to his queries by saying 'we can find no trace of the Bilderberg Group in any of our reference works on international organisations', while he later learnt that the Foreign Office had paid for British members to attend Bilderberg conferences.
Van der Pijl's assessment of the role of Bilderberg seems about as accurate as the available information would allow:
'Rather than constituting an all-powerful secret Atlantic directorate, Bilderberg served, at best, as the environment for developing ideas in that direction, and secrecy was necessary for allowing the articulation of differences rather than for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge. In this sense Bilderberg functioned as the testing ground for new initiatives for Atlantic unity.' (Van der Pijl p. 183)
But on occasions the group is known to have exerted real power. An (unnamed) German participant at the 1974 conference held six months after the Arab Israeli War at Edmond de Rothschild's hotel at Megeve in France, commented:
'Half a dozen knowledgeable people had managed, in effect, to set the world's monetary system wolfing again [after OPEC's quadrupling of oil prices], and it was important to try to knit together our networks of personal contacts. We had to resist institutionalism, bureaucratic red-tape, and the creation of new procedures and committees. Official bodies should be put in the position of ratifying what had been jointly prepared in advance.' (Sklar, p. 171)
The Treaty of Rome signed on March 25 1957 created the 'common market' (the European Economic Community) and its roots were laid down in the ECSC (the European Coal and Steel Community) established on April 18 1951, based on the Schuman Plan of May 9 1950 (Vaughan 1976, Milward 1984). It is not implausible to suggest that the route from the one to the other in fact passed through the first five Bilderberg conferences, May 1954 at Oosterbeek (Netherlands), March 1955 at Barbizon (France), September the same year at Garmisch (Germany), May 1956 at Fredensborg (Denmark) and finally in February 1957 at St. Simon's Island (Georgia, USA); and that these secret meetings played a decisive role in overcoming the opposing, centrifugal tendencies symbolised by the collapse of the European Defence Community in 1954, the Hungarian revolution and its suppression and the fiasco of the Anglo-French adventure at Suez in 1956 - the last gasp of independent European imperialism.
Even more important the 'protectionism' implicit in the European unification project was successfully subordinated to the liberalising hegemony of the Americans, through the close involvement of the key US players at every stage. The evidence for this is entirely circumstantial, and this hypothesis must remain speculative, but I believe there is a prima facie case to launch an investigation. It should be clear from the details recounted earlier that not all the possible roads led to the Rome Treaty, and that there is far more to the politics of European 'integration' than the legislative enactments already known about.
Monet himself, who mentions-neither Retinger nor Bilderberg in his memoirs (Monnet 1978), cannot have been unaware of the activities of these crucial constituents of his programme. However much he may be portrayed in the hagiographies as a far-sighted idealist, Monnet was, first and foremost, an international financier, with an extensive network of connections on both sides of the Atlantic, occupying a particular place in the configuration of capitalist interests forming what Van der Pijl calls the Atlantic circuit of money capital (Van der Pijl 1984). He was, for example, a close friend of all the key figures in the US power structure; but, more importantly, his network centred around the New York investment banks Lazard Freres (run by Andre Meyer who was also on the board of Rockefeller's Chase International Bank), and Goldmann Sachs, which, after the war gravitated into the Rockefeller orbit. Monnet's right-hand man, Pierre Uri, was European director of Lehman Brothers; and Robert Marjolin, one of Monnet's assistants in the first modernisation plan, subsequently joined the board of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Uri and Marjolin were also active in Bilderberg.
When Monnet resigned from his position of 'High Authority' in the ECSC in 1955 to run his Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE), his secretary at ECSC, Max Kohnstamm who had earlier been private secretary to Queen Wilhelmina, (i.e. Prince Bernhard's mother-in-law), and then Dutch representative in the Schuman Plan negotiations, became the vice-president of ACUSE, which had extensive overlaps with Bilderberg. Kohnstamm, for example, later became a member of the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, and Georges Berthoin, who was Monnet's private secretary at the ECSC 1951-55, took over Kohnstamm's place on the Trilateral Commission in 197S. Francois Duchene and Paul Delouvner, who both worked for ECSC in the fifties (and joined the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s), Guy Mollet and Antoine Pinay were in the Bilderberg network (5)
It would be simply too large and complex a matter to trace the twists and turns in the politics of European unification since the period from the fifties to the present. Too much water has flowed under the bridge, and it is doubtful that it is any longer even the same bridge, so many times has Europe' or the European idea' had to be periodically 'relaunched'. Instead of even attempting this in broad outline, I will draw attention very briefly to the role played by secretive and unaccountable organisations of members of the European economic and political elites.
One little-reported group, for example, which seems to wield immense influence is the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). To my knowledge there have only been two or three reports of this group in the British press, and yet in articulating the demands and interests of the largest and most powerful European multinational corporations, it surely calls for close study. I suspect this is the same group as that mentioned in passing in Charles Grant's biography of Jacques Delors. Delors' arrival as European Commissioner in 198S, he says, could not have occurred at a more propitious moment: he had spent the autumn of 1984 searching for a 'Big Idea' to relaunch the EEC.
'That autumn, in Brussels, Delors had met a group of officials and industrialists brought together by Max Kohnstamm, who had been Monnet's chief assistant. After Monnet's death in 1979, Kohnstamm had become one of the guardians of the sacred name of federalism. The Kohnstamm group advised Delors to make the internal market his priority and to lay down a timetable of eight years (the life of two Commissions) for its achievement...... At the same time Wisse Dekker, the chairman of Philips, made several speeches calling for the EEC to remove its internal barriers by 1990.' (Grant 1994, p. 66)
If this is in fact referring to the same group as that known as the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), then we have an example of a continuity between the fifties and today. This ERT comprises the chairs/CEOs of the leading European multinational corporations and it is by no means a mere assembly of dignitaries. This is an extremely powerful body. According to research conducted by the ASEED collective, its reports feed directly into the European Commission decision making process. One of its first reports, for example, entitled 'Missing Links', urged the immediate construction of a series of large-scale transport projects, including the Channel Tunnel. As well as Dekker of Philips, other leading figures in the ERT are Agnelli of Flat, Gyllenhammer of Volvo, and Denys Henderson of ICI.
A persistent problem with theories of power over the last 20 years has been their lack of engagement with empirical evidence, compounded by the demonstrable empirical ignorance of theorists. It is as if every academic feels able to develop theories about power, and engage in debates it, without any requirement for relevant information, or at any rate with a tacit assumption that everyone at has such information.
One possible place to start an attempt to 'theorise' the role of Bilderberg and other international power-elite forums, might be to re-enter an old debate at the beginning of the present century: this is the debate between Lenin and Kautsky over imperialism.
Lenins theory of imperialism sought to explain the first world war by reference to what he called inter-imperialist rivalries. While this theory has had an enormous influence during this century (it under-pins, for example, much contemporary discussion of the relations between 'the West' and the 'Developing World, in which it is assumed that power operates between geographically-defined regions, and that nation-states act at the behest of nationally-based capitalist classes), it is nevertheless demonstrably false in a number of crucial particulars. For example, one of the difficulties in Lenin's theory is reconciling it with the increasing interpenetration of national economies by trans-national capitalist blocs. To put this issue simply: wars take place between states, but inter-capitalist rivalries do not necessarily coincide with the territories between states, especially where international or trans-national corporations have developed. The material presented here, I would suggest, is of just this kind: it shows an inter-penetration of capitalist interests between the USA and Western Europe, and indicates a field of 'political struggle' within and between states, entirely outside that of the public sphere.
What is far less well-known today, however, is Kautsky's alternative conception which explicitly addressed this issue, and can be summed up by his notion of ultra-imperialism (Fennema, 1982). The simple hypothesis is that rival capitalist interests may, at least for a time, be able to coalesce into a relatively unified hegemonic bloc. Now this idea of a tendency towards stabilisation on a global scale may sound unrealistic today, but arguably this was what was achieved for fifty years, at least in the American-dominated half of the world, after 1945. It could even be said that the demise of the other half permits its universalization. Where are the 'inter-imperialist rivalries in the world today'?
When first asked for a title for this paper, I briefly entertained the idea of using the above sub-heading, (paraphrasing a recent film-title), and I do believe it is important to ask why certain topics rather than others are deemed worthy of investigation. The material presented here is certainly 'dated' and therefore unfashionable, but similar information about the present could be investigated. It is surprising and somewhat depressing that such investigations no longer seem to be being carried out in universities today. (6) Academics often represent themselves somewhat flatteringly as 'critical' intellectuals, independent from or even determinedly opposed to the established systems of power in society, willing to face personal or professional risks in the pursuit of truth. Maybe they are more like lambs.
(1) The term 'liberal' signifies policies opposed to restrictions on international trade. The distinction between 'free trade' and 'protectionism' in international trade does not correspond exactly with the theoretical opposition of 'competition' and 'monopoly'. None of these concepts have straightforward empirical reference. The 1992 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) for example, is in fact profoundly 'protectionist' in relation to such matters as intellectual property rights (software, patents for seeds, drugs etc.) with elaborate 'rules of origin' designed to keep out foreign competitors etc. see Dawkins 1993.
(2) If the Marshall Plan had military objectives (containment of Soviet influence) as much as economic ones (creation of markers for US industry), then NATO has a civilian, political and ideological role as much as a military one. NATO has been relatively neglected by students of 'supranational' organisations, and it is often Presumed to be just a treaty rather than a quasigovernmental organisation in its own right. Its highest political body, the North Atlantic Council, covers foreign policy issues as well as strictly military questions, and the North Atlantic Assembly works to influence the parliamentary members of individual countries. It falls within the brief of NATO to conduct propaganda and defend states the 'infiltration of ideas'. Few citizens of NATO countries are aware of the whole apparatus to which membership commits them - e.g. Plans 10 G and 100-1 under which in 'emergency situations' special US units would be activated to suppress any movement 'threatening to US strategic interests'.
(3) It is extremely difficult to define the exact status of Retinger. One Polish war-time exile leader has been quoted as saying that Retinger was 'suspected of being in close touch not so much with British politics as with certain of its discrete institutions'. Presumably SIS. See Korbonski p. 20.
(4) Later American participants included Robert MacNamara, US Secretary of Defence under Kennedy and Johnson (earlier chair of the Ford Motor Company, and later President of the World Bank); and McGeorge Bundy, who worked on the Marshall Plan, was US National Security Adviser and later special foreign policy adviser to Kennedy and Johnson 1960-65, and became President of the Ford Foundation 1966-79. His brother, William Bundy, was with the CIA 1951-61 and later managed the CFR journal Foreign Affairs from 1979, after working at the Pentagon 1964-69. He married Dean Acheson's daughter. Finally, all three Directors of the CIA in this period were also members of Bilderberg: Allen Dulles (John Foster Dulles's brother), John McCone and Richard Helms. Needless to say, all these figures were also members of the CFR. For more details of participants see the essay by Thompson in Sklar ed. 1980, and Eringer 1980.
(5) Pinay, who was French Prime Minister in 1951, figures rather allusively in Brian Crozier's memoirs (Crozier, 1993 ch. XV) as the eminence grise of the controversial 'Pinay Cercle', an anti-communist intelligence outfit in the 1970s and 80s (Ramsay & Dorril 1986, p. 39 and Teacher 1989).
(6) It is ironic that while the initial research which discovered the existence of the Bilderberg network and explored its ramifications within the power structure of Atlantic capitalism came entirely from Marxist and left-inclined scholars in the USA, the whole subject has now been virtually taken over by the US far right as the centre piece of its own bizarre world-view. These writers of the far right (Anthony Sutton, Lyndon La Rouche, Spool and the Liberty Lobby etc.) have added virtually nothing to our understanding or knowledge of the phenomenon, and accordingly, are not referenced in the bibliography below. They have, however, contaminated the topic with their confusion. Since around the mid-1980s, the American Left has dropped the whole issue like a hot potato. For a singular exception sec Brandt 1993, which is essentially a response to Bcrlet, 1992.
Aaronovitch, Sam The Ruling Class, Lawrence & Wishart 1961
Anderson, Perry 'Under the Sign of the Interim', London Review of Books, 4 January 1996
Ayala, Cesar J. 'Theories of Big Business in American Society' Critical Sociology, Vol.16 No. 2-3, Summer-Fall 1989
Beret, Chip Right Woos Left, Political Research Associates, October 1992
Brandt, Daniel 'Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite', NameBase Newsline, October- December, 1993
Businessweek, June 18 1984
Carew, Anthony Labour under the Marshall Plan Manchester University Press, 1987
Chomsky, Noam Necessary Illusions, South End Press, 1989
Chomsky, Noam What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Odonian Press, 1993
Chomsky, Noam Secrets, Lies and Democracy, Odonian Press, 1994
Chomsky, Noam Powers and Prospects, South End Press, 1996 Coleman, Peter A Liberal Conspiracy, Macmillan 1989
Crozier, Brian Free Agent, Harper Collins, 1993
Cumings, Bruce 'Chinatown: Foreign Policy and Elite Realignment' in Ferguson, Thomas & Rogers, Joel (ads.) The Hidden Election, Random House, 1981
Hawkins. Kristin NAFTA: The New Rules of Corporate Conquest Open Magazine, 1993
Domhoff, G. William The Power Elite and the State, Aldine de Gruyter, 1990
Eringer, Robert The Global Manipulators, Pentacle Books, 1980
Fennema, Meindert International Networks of Banks and Industry Maninus Nijhoff, 1982
Fennema, Meindert & van der Pijl, Kees 'International Bank Capital and the New Liberalism' in Mizruchi, Mark & Schwartz, Michael (eds.) Inter-corporate Relations, Cambridge University, 1987
Freitag, Peter J. 'The Cabinet and Big Business: A Study of Interlocks', Social Problems Vol. 23, 1975
Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, 1984
The Nation-State and Violence, Polity Press, 1985
Gill, Stephen American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, Cambridge University Press, 1990
Grant, Charles Delors, Nicholas Brealey, 1994
Groom. A. J. R. & Taylor, Paul beds.) Frameworks for International Co-operation, Pinter, 1990
Hatch, Alden HRH Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Harrap, 1972
Healey, Denis The Time of My life, Penguin, 1990
Isaacson, Walter and Thomas, Evan The Wise Men, Simon & Schuster, 1986
Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri The CIA and American Democracy Yale University Press, 1989
Jessop, Bob State Theory, Polity Press, 1990
Koenig, Peter 'A prince among bankers who wears Lazard's triple crown' Independent on Sunday, 11 February 1990
Korbonski, Stefan Warsaw in Exile, Allen and Unwin, 1966
Milward, Alan The Reconstruction of Federal Europe, Methuen, 1981
The European Rescue of the Nation State, Routledge, 1992
Milward, Alan et al The Frontier of national Sovereignty, Routledge, 1994
Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, 1956
Mizruchi, Mark The American Corporate Network 1904-1971 Sage, 1982
Monnet, Jean Memoirs Collins, 1978
Pisani, Sally The CIA and the Marshall Plan University of, Edinburgh Press, 1992
Pomian, John (ed.) Joseph Retinger: Memoirs of an Eminence Grise Sussex University Press, 1972
Ramsay, Robin & Dorril, Stephen Lobster 11, April 1986
Ramsay, Robin & Dorril, Stephen 'The Pinay Circle' Lobster 17, 8 November 1988
Ramsay, Robin & Dorril Stephen 'In a Common Cause: the AntiCommunist Crusade in Britain 1945-60' Lobster 19, May 1990
Reich, Cary Financier: the biography of Andre Meyer Quill, 1983
Retinger, Joseph The European Continent? Hodge, 1946
Schuman, Frederick The Commonwealth of Man Robert Hale 1954
Shoup, Laurence H. & Minter, William Imperial Brain Trust Monthly Review Press, I977
Sklar, Holly (ed.) Trilateralism South End Press, l980
Stokman. Frans et al. (eds.) Networks of Corporate Power Polity Press, 1985
Teacher, David The Pinay Circle and Destabilisation in Europe' Lobster 18, October 1989
Tether, C. Gordon The Banned Articles of C Gordon Tether Hetheringstoke, 1976
Van der Pijl, Kees The Mating of an Atlantic Ruling Class Verso, 1984
Vaughan, Richard Post-War Integration in Europe Edward Arnold 1976
Contact: Robin Ramsay (Dept. W)
214 Westbourne Avenue
Hull HU5 3JB
UK tel: 01482 447558
Int'l tel: +44 1482 447558
As we have already heard, TWO chairmen - former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Lord Peter Carrington were both heavily involved in the Nijmegen/Arnhem Operation Market Garden debacle of September 1944 (see below).
http://groups.google.com/group/pepis/browse_thread/thread/a26394696535644a and below
For the background watch the fine film A Bridge Too Far
Sometime over the next decade the name of the Wolfheze Hotel became a branded Bilderberg Hotel..
Model was the direct opposite equivalent to Allied commander Bernard Montgomery who planned Market Garden and was unjustly criticised for its failure.
Monty's plan very nearly succeeded but for any one of three massive errors - or betrayals:
1. Former SS Officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was refused security clearance for the Admiraltybut, on the express orders of King George VI was included in the British Army's Whitehall warr planning team with Brian Horrocks, Monty etc. He looks also to have been involved in removing Sir Brian Urquhart from the staff who had come up with serious reservationsabout the operation. The plans of MG were supposedly found by Germans in a crashed glider, so the SS knew exactly what was planned. But was this a made-up story to cover for Prince Bernhard's spying in Whitehall? How else did several German generals in Arnhem & Nijmegen appear to have 'prior knowledge' of the attack?
2. Despite having up to 80 sherman tanks at their disposal - The 40 tanks each of the Irish Guards and the Grenadier Guards regiments, Welsh Guards (Eindhoven area) & Coldstream Guards (Groesbeek Heights SE of Nijmegen) were tied up elsewhere - Carrington, Adaire, Horrocks and the Guards Armoured division failed to advance after sucessfully securing the Nijmegen road bridge which the 10th SS panzer divsion commander had rigged to blow - but it did not blow up. Heinz Harmel was unprepared for the Nijmegen road bridge to fail to blow up so had to put together a blocking force in Elst that night, but before he had a chance to do that it looks almost certain that Carrington and the other tanks would have had almost no resistance, a clear run to Arnhem to reinforce Frost's 2nd Battalion just hanging on by their fingernails at Arnhem bridge. This is according to OC 10th SS Panzer division Heinz Harmel's German Artillery map for that evening which show there were virtually no German forces between Lent and Arnhem. Just a few infantry security pickets in Elst.
3. Brigadier Lathbury of 1st Airborne Division, acting under the command of the other Urquhart. failed to send several companies of 1st Airborne division troops to the Arnhem bridge despite being given a clear route (Lion Route) to the main objective of Market Garden over the radio by Major Tony Hibbert who was at the bridge.
Posted on March 20, 2012 by Admin
If you look at (From a Bridge Too Far):
and scan down to the fourth map, you will see that the German blocking force (Battalion Krafft) shown as black line, waiting ready for 1st Airborne on that sunny afternoon on Sunday 17th September. The battalion obviously has its HQ right there in the Bilderberg Hotel (Wolfheze Hotel).
If you look at the Drop Zones 9and landing zones) on proceeding map the line was abreast 1st Brigades route to Arnhem, at least some of the Brigade.
As you can see the Recce Squadron (yellow) ran straight into the line and had to double back quicktime. Only 2nd Battalion (Frost) and some of 1st Brigade HQ (with Brigade Major Hibbert, but without Lathbury, the Brigadier) made it through to Arnhem.
The 3rd Battalion (think they came from glider landing) got round the southern flank but failed to get anywhere near Arnhem and the 1st Battalion had to skirt round the block to the north and also failed to get to Arnhem.
How did this blocking force happen to be in the right place at the right time??? and just a short while after landing.
So you can see that Bilderberg Hotel was where the 1st Airborne (and MG) came unstuck (effectively) right after the Sunday drop a good place to celebrate 10 years later with 1st Bilderberg meeting.
Top German Hermann Abs (Chairman of Deutsche Bank), Hitlers banker and IG Farben guy was there (he must have thought it very appropriate venue) along with another 8 or 9 Germans.
It would be good to know when name was changed and why (to disguise real name Wolfheze in case someone in the British contingent noticed?).
I wonder if the name (Bilderberg) has any particular meaning.
You say Bernhardt owned the hotel, did he acquire it after MG debacle?
I reckon Bernhardt (and Retinger) must have been laughing down his sleeve at getting all those Brits to gather at this notorious location.
Recent revelations that show Field Marshal Montgomerys Operation Market Garden, in September 1944, aimed at severing German supply lines on the Western Front should have worked. It was early morning in Holland on Sunday 17th September 1944 and as the gliders and paratroopers poured down along a sixty mile corridor to hold the bridges. The furthest bridge from the front line at Arnhem became the focus of attention as and the biggest airborne operation in history unfolded. Was it really A Bridge Too Far as the title of Cornelius Ryans book and Robert E. Levines famous film imply? Or could the tanks and ground troops of XXX corps have gotten through to relieve the surrounded British paratroopers? With Arnhem only 10 kilometres, a 30 minute drive away and a virtually clear road ahead General Horrocks M4 Sherman tanks inexplicably halted for 17 hours. By the time the tanks started rolling at lunchtime the next day British paratroopers had run out of ammunition, been forced to surrender and German Panzer 5 & Tiger tank reinforcements had arrived to block the way. The Nijmegen bridgehead was established around 19:00hrs, 3 hours later, at 22:00hrs that evening the British were forced to surrender at the Arnhem bridge. So paratroopers of the 1st Airborne division at Arnhem bridge may have been relieved in the nick of time and war in Europe could have been over six months earlier, by Christmas 1944. We look at Cornelius Ryans book A Bridge Too Far as well as Joseph E. Levines film of the same name. Interviews with: Captain T. Moffatt Burriss, author of Strike and Hold who was commander of i-company, 504th regiment, 82nd Airborne division during the legendary Waal river crossing; Robert Kershaw author of It Never Snows In September who interviewed 10th SS Panzer Division Brigadeführer Heinz Harmel, commander of the German defence of the Nijmegen and Arnhem bridges; Major Tony Hibbert who was a senior officer of 2nd batallion 1st brigade, British 1st Airborne division at the Arnhem bridge; Tim Lynch author of Operation Market Garden: The Legend of the Waal Crossing; Sir Brian Urquhart, army intelligence officer in the run-up to the operation he was critical of it and transferred before it began but later became Secretary General of the newly formed United Nations.
Friday's show about Operation Market Garden has several Bilderberg references. Here is a more comprehensive exposition of the three bizarre Bilderberg/Market Garden links: Sunday 17th September 1944's Operation Market Garden and Bilderberg
Horrocks and Monty with Bilderberg founder & former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands
1) Firstly Despite being a former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was actually with Field Marshal Montgomery, General Brian Horrocks etc. in Whitehall influencing planning intelligence at the highest level in the run up to Market Garden in September 1944. The Royal Navy and RAF did not trust Bernhard but it seems King George VI insisted he had to be trusted by the Army as he could liase with the Dutch resistance. Trouble with that was he knew very little about Holland, he was a German, brought up in Bavaria who married into the Dutch royal family in 1937. Sir Brian Urquhart makes reference to Bernhard's presence too in the second clip toward the end of the show. Bernhard was chair of the top secret Bilderberg conference from 1954 to 1975.
2) A later chairman of the Bilderberg Lord Peter Carrington was a young Grenadier
Guards captain and radio operator in the second squadron of tanks to cross
the Nijmegen road bridge. Because he would not go on to Arnhem after the
bridge was taken at 18:30hrs on the evening of Wednesday 20th September he
was threatened at gunpoint by Captain T. Moffat Burriss of 82nd Airborne
who ordered Carrington to get moving. Confronted by Burriss' tommy gun pointing
at his head Carrington pulled the lid down on his tank and stayed in there
all night. Burriss had just lost half his company seizing the north end of
the Nijmegen bridge and now the advance had ground to a halt right at the
At that point evidence suggests the road from Nijmegen to Arnhem was clear of any force that could stop a tank - this we know because of an artillery map passed to parachute regiment liason officer and historian Robert Kershaw by CO of the 10th SS Panzer Division Heinz Harmel before he died. Artillery maps are very reliable because they show exact dispositions of friendly forces so the German artillery does not fire on their own people.
There is also the fact that Harmel was expecting to be able to dramatically blow up the Nijmegen Road bridge that evening when the first British tanks crossed it. When he tried to do this around 18:30hrs the charges failed to go off and this necessitated bringing his forces down from Arnhem to contain the forces he expected to be pouring over the captured Nijmegen bridge at any moment. Trouble was the Arnhem bridge was still being denied to him by Colonel Frost's regiment who held the Arnhem bridge until their defences collapsed around 22:00hrs that evening.
You may have noticed from the timings here that the mighty British Guards Armoured division had precisely 3 hours to make the 9km drive to Arnhem where Frost's men were hanging on by their fingernails. That would have taken Lord Carrington's M4 Sherman about 30 minutes to get there. By 22:00hrs Frost's position was being overrun so why did Peter Carrington, Allan Adair and Brian Horrocks not send one or two battle-groups of tanks through the security pickets which were half way to Arnhem in Elst to relieve the beleagured paratroopers in the nick of time?
Harmel was later to say "The four tanks who crossed the bridge made a mistake when they stayed in Lent. If they had carried on their advance, it would have been all over for us. ... Why did they not drive on to Elst instead of staying in Lent? ... At this instant there were no German armored forces available to block Elst. This gave us time to get Kampfgruppe Knaust down there." The time Horrocks gave them was in fact over seventeen hours, XXX corps did not move out until 12:30hrs the next day by which time the road was utterly impassable, it had been heavily fortified with anti-tank guns, dug-in tank destroyers and of course the notorious Tiger tanks.
3) Then there is the little town of Oosterbeek, which was where the Bristish 1st Airborne division were headquartered in the Hartenstein hotel, surrounded by Germans. The SS called the allied pocket "Der Hexenkessel" which means "Witches Cauldron" because, the lightly armed paratroopers in Oosterbeek who were short of ammunition were facing rockets, flamethrower tanks, Tiger and other heavy tanks as well as anti-aircraft guns. Only a tiny proportion of the British Paras. managed to get back to the allied lines alive. This Oosterbeek 'witches' cauldron' was the venue, ten years later, for the first ever secret Bilderberg meeting at Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg hotel in Oosterbeek.
A decisively powerful network of corporate entities run by hardened SS veterans, the Bormann group constitutes what one veteran banker termed the greatest concentration of money power under a single control in history. The foundation of the organizations clout is moneylots and lots of money. Controlling German big business and, through investments, much of the rest of the worlds economy, the organization was the repository for the stolen wealth of Europe, estimated by British intelligence to have totaled more than $180 billion by the end of 1943 (not including the money taken from Greece and the former Soviet Union, nor that taken after 1943.) [For more on the global economic significance of the Bormann group, seeamong other programsFTR#99.] This organization literally constitutes a postwar Underground Reich with (as discussed in FTR#155) a governing hierarchy composed of the sons and daughters of SS men, holding military ranks and titles from the Third Reich.
Download or read it here in Word document - PDF - or Rich Text formats
RED HOUSE MEETING AUGUST 10TH 1944
Extracted from 'Martin Bormann, Nazi In Exile' by Paul Manning
IT WAS EARLY MORNING AND THE HAZE COVERING the broad Alsatian plain was lifting to reveal glistening mountainside acres of wine grapes and the string of fortresses that dominate the hillsides and vineyard villages on the road from Colmarfortresses old when Joan of Arc was young. A Mercedes- Benz, flying Nazi swastika and SS flags from the front bumpers, was moving at high speed through columns of German infantry marching toward Colmar from where the command car had come. A mountainous region, some of World War IIs bitterest fighting was to take place there as winter approached, once American divisions had bypassed Paris and moved through Metz into the Colmar Gap.
The staff car had left Colmar at first light for Strasbourg, carrying SS Obergruppenfuehrer Scheid, who held the rank of lieutenant general in the Waffen SS, as well as the title of Dr. Scheid, director of the industrial firm of Hermadorff & Schenburg Company. While the beauty of the rolling countryside was not lost on Dr. Scheid, his thoughts were on the meeting of important German businessmen to take place on his arrival at the Hotel Maison Rouge in Strasbourg. Reichsleiter Martin Bormann himself had ordered the conference, and although he would not physically be present he had confided to Dr. Scheid, who was to preside, The steps to be taken as a result of this meeting will determine the postwar future of Germany. The Reichsleiter had added, German industry must realize that the war cannot now be won, and must take steps to prepare for a postwar commercial campaign which will in time insure the economic resurgence of Germany. It was August 10, 1944. The Mercedes-Benz bearing SS Obergruppenfuehrer Scheid moved slowly now through the narrow streets of Strasbourg. Dr. Scheid noticed that this was a most agreeable city, one to return to after the war. It was the city where in 1792 the stirring Marsellaise was composed by Rouget de Lisle, ostensibly for the mayors banquet. The street signs all in French, the names of the shops all in German, were characteristic of bilingual Alsace, a land that has been disputed throughout known history, particularly since the formation of the two nations, Germany and France. After World War I, the Treaty of Versailles restored Alsace-Lorraine to France, but after the fall of France in World War II the Germans reannexed these 5,600 square miles of territory, and life went on as usual, except for the 18,000 Alsatians who had volunteered to fight for the Third Reich on the Eastern Front.
The staff car drew up before the Hotel Maison Rouge on the rue des France-Bourgeois. Dr. Scheid, briefcase in hand, entered the lobby and ascended in the elevator to the conference suite reserved for his meeting. Methodically he circled the room, greeting each of the twelve present, then took his place at the head of the conference table. Even the pads and pencils before each man had been checked; Waffen SS technicians had swept the entire room, inspecting for hidden microphones and miniature transmitters. As an additional precaution, all suites flanking the conference suite had been held unfilled, as had the floors above and below, out of bounds for the day. Lunch was to be served in the conference suite by trusted Waffen SS stewards. Those present, all thirteen of them, could be assured that the thorough precautions would safeguard them all, even the secretary who was to take the minutes, later to be typed with a copy sent by SS courier to Bormann.
A transcript of that meeting is in my possession. It is a captured German document from the files of the U.S. Treasury Department, and states who was present and what was said, as the economy of the Third Reich was projected onto a postwar profit-seeking track.
Present were Dr. Kaspar representing Krupp, Dr. Tolle representing Röchling, Dr. Sinceren representing Messerschmitt, Drs. Kopp, Vier, and Beerwanger representing Rheinmetall, Captain Haberkorn and Dr. Ruhe representing Bussing, Drs. Ellenmayer and Kardos representing Volkswagenwerk, engineers Drose, Yanchew, and Koppshem representing various factories in Posen, Poland (Drose, Yanchew, & Co., Brown-Boveri, Herkuleswerke, Buschwerke, and Stadtwerke); Dr. Meyer, an official of the German Naval Ministry in Paris; and Dr. Strossner of the Ministry of Armament, Paris.
Dr. Scheid, papers from his briefcase arranged neatly on the table before him, stated that all industrial matériel in France was to be evacuated to Germany immediately. The battle of France is lost to Germany, he admitted, quoting Reichsleiter Bormann as his authority, and now the defense of the Siegfried Line (and Germany itself) is the main problem. . . . From now on, German industry must take steps in preparation for a postwar commercial campaign, with each industrial firm making new contacts and alliances with foreign firms. This must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion. However, the party and the Third Reich will stand behind every firm with permissive and financial support. He assured those present that the frightening law of 1933 known as Treason Against the Nation, which mandated the death penalty for violation of foreign exchange regulations or concealing of foreign currency, was now null and void, on direct order of Reichsleiter Bormann.
Dr. Scheid also affirmed, The ground must now be laid on the financial level for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after the war. As an example of the kind of support that had been most useful to Germany in the past, Dr. Scheid cited the fact that patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc., New York, and the Krupp Company of Germany, jointly, and that of the United States Steel Corporation, Carnegie, Illinois, American Steel & Wire, National Tube, etc., were thereby under an obligation to work with the Krupp concern. He also cited the Zeiss Company, the Leica Company, and the Hamburg-Amerika Line as typical firms that had been especially effective in protecting German interests abroad. He gave New York addresses to the twelve men. Glancing at his watch, Dr. Scheid asked for comments from each of the twelve around the table. Then he adjourned the morning session for lunch.
At his signal, soldier stewards brought in a real Strasbourg lunch. On a long side table they placed plates of pâté de foie gras, matelote, noodles, sauerkraut, knuckles of ham, sausages, and onion tarts, along with bottles of Coq au Riesling from nearby wineries. Brandy and cigars were also set out and the stewards left the room, closing the doors quietly as guards stood at attention.
Following lunch, several, including Dr. Scheid, left for the Rhine and Germany, where they would spread the word among their peers in industry about the new industrial goals for the postwar years.
A smaller conference in the afternoon was presided over by Dr. Bosse of the German Armaments Ministry. It was attended only by representatives of Hecko, Krupp, and Röchling. Dr. Bosse restated Bormanns belief that the war was all but lost, but that it would be continued by Germany until certain goals to insure the economic resurgence of Germany after the war had been achieved. He added that German industrialists must be prepared to finance the continuation of the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground, just as had the Maquis in France.
From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure postwar foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required, he continued, that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independent and have no connection with the factory. These bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as documents which they will need to continue their research. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villages near sources of hydroelectric power, where these party members can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of any Allied investigators.
Dr. Bosse stressed that knowledge of these technical bureaus would be held only by a very few persons in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party. Each office would have a liaison agent representing the party and its leader, Reichsleiter Bormann. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to reestablish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and cooperation by concessions and orders.
At both morning and afternoon conferences, it was emphasized that the existing prohibition against the export of capital is now completely withdrawn and replaced by a new Nazi policy, in which industrialists with government assistance (Bormann to be the guiding leader) will export as much of their capital as possible, capital meaning money, bonds, patents, scientists, and administrators.
Bosse urged the industrialists to proceed immediately to get their capital outside Germany. The freedom thus given to German industrialists further cements their relations with the party by giving them a measure of protection in future efforts at home and overseas.
From this day, German industrial firms of all rank were to begin placing their fundsand, wherever possible, key manpower abroad, especially in neutral countries. Dr. Bosse advised that two main banks can be used for the export of funds for firms who have made no prior arrangements: the Basler Handelsbank and the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt of Zurich. He also stated, There are a number of agencies in Switzerland which for a five percent commission will buy property in Switzerland for German firms, using Swiss cloaks.
Dr. Bosse closed the meeting, observing that after the defeat of Germany, the Nazi Party recognizes that certain of its best known leaders will be condemned as war criminals. However, in cooperation with the industrialists, it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important members with various German factories as technical experts or members of its research and designing offices.
The meeting adjourned late. As the participants left, Dr. Bosse placed a call to Martin Bormann in Berlin over SS lines. The conversation was cryptic, merely a report that all industrialists at the one-day Strasbourg conference had agreed to the new policy of flight capital as initiated by the Reichsleiter. With the report completed, Bormann then placed a call, to Dr. Georg von Schnitzler, member of the central committee of the I.G. Farben board of directors.
I.G. Farben had been the largest single earner of foreign exchange for Germany during the years of the Third Reich. Its operations in Germany included control of 380 companies with factories, power installations, and mines, as well as vast chemical establishments. It operated in 93 countries and the sun never set on I.G. Farben, which had a participation, both acknowledged and concealed, in over 500 firms outside Germany. They grew as the Third Reich did, and as German armies occupied each country in Europe they were followed by Farben technicians who built further factories and expanded the I.G. investment to RM (Reichsmarks) 7 billion. The Farben cartel agreements involving trade and the related use of its chemical patents also numbered over 2,000, including such major industrial concerns as Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon), the Aluminum Company of America, E.I. du Font de Nemours, Ethyl Export Corporation, Imperial Chemical Industries (Great Britain), Dow Chemical Company, Rohm & Haas, Etablissments Kuhlman (France), and the Mitsui interests of Japan.
I.G. Farben was a formidable ally for Reichsleiter Bormann in his plans for the postwar economic rebirth of Germany. In a telephone conversation with Dr. von Schnitzler, Bormann asked what would the loss of factories in France and the other occupied countries mean to German industry in general and to I.G. in particular. Dr. von Schnitzler said he believed the technical dependence of these countries on I.G. would be so great that despite German defeat I.G., in one way or another, could regain its position of control of the European chemical business. They will need the constant technical help of I.G.s scientific laboratories as they do not own appropriate installations within themselves, he further told Bormann, adding that he and other industrialists such as Hermann Röchling do not think much of Hitlers recent declaration of a scorched-earth policy for Germany. Destruction of our factories will surely inhibit Germanys recovery in the postwar world, he affirmed.
Bormann pondered this exchange with von Schnitzler. It was then that he determined to countermand Hitlers order for the ruthless destruction of German industry. He was aware also that the Gauleiters, the regional political supervisors and area com- manders of the party, who reported to him as party chief, shared the same view as expressed by Dr. von Schnitzler.
However, Bormann waited nearly four weeks until the right moment came to go against Hitlers directive. It came when Albert Speer, minister for armaments and war production, sent a teletype on September 5, 1944, to headquarters for Hitlers attention. In this message, Speer outlined the realistic reasons why industrial plants should not be destroyed; Bormann lost no time sending this on to all the Gauleiters of Germany with his own imperative: On behalf of the Fuehrer I herewith transmit to you a communication from Reichsminister Speer. Its provisos are to be observed strictly and unconditionally.
Speer had commented, Even Bormann had played along with me. He seemed to be more aware than Hitler of the fearful consequences of total devastation. Speer also noted, in this month of September 1944, that Hitlers authority in the party was no longer what it had been.
Such authority had long since passed quietly to Reichsleiter Bormann, who had succeeded in outmaneuvering all the old gang: Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, the various generals, and Speer, who was told in 1944 by Hitler always to deal directly with Bormann on all matters. As Speer put it, I had lost for good. He was embittered and envious, and his feelings were to color every utterance he made about the Reichsleiter. Martin Bormann was now the leader in fact of Germany.
Hitler, exhausted, drained of the charisma of the glory days of the thirties and the conquest years of the early forties, was going through the gestures of military leadership mechanically as his troops fell back on all fronts. Martin Bormann, forty-one at the fall of Berlin, and strong as a bull, was at all times at Hitlers side, impassive and cool. His be-all and end-all was to guide Hitler, and now to make the decisions that would lead to the eventual rebirth of his country. Hitler, his intuitions at peak level despite his crumbling physical and mental health in the last year of the Third Reich, realized this and approved of it. Bury your treasure, he advised Bormann, for you will need it to begin a Fourth Reich. That is precisely what Bormann was about when he set in motion the flight capital scheme August 10, 1944, in Strasbourg. The treasure, the golden ring, he envisioned for the new Germany was the sophisticated distribution of national and corporate assets to safe havens throughout the neutral nations of the rest of the world.
Martin Bormann knew in his heart that the war in Europe was over when Normandy was lost. The day Hitlers troops were defeated at the Falaise Gap was the day he ordered swing industrialists of Germany to Strasbourg to hear his plans for Germanys future.
Societys natural survivors, French version, who had served the Third Reich as an extension of German industry, would continue to do so in the period of postwar trials, just as they had survived the war, occupation, and liberation. These were many of the French elite, the well-born, the propertied, the titled, the experts, industrialists, businessmen, bureaucrats, bankers. On the other hand, the intellectuals, the writers, the propagandists for the Germans, and the deputies of the Third Republic were among those purged with a heavy hand. The number of Frenchmen who were part of the resistance during World War II was never large, about 2 percent of the adult population. With the liberation of France, old scores were settled: 124,750 persons were tried, 767 being executed for treason or contact with the enemy in time of war. Sentenced to prison terms were 38,000, who also endured loss of national dignitydisenfranchisement and ineligibility to hold public office. Even before any arrests and trials could take place, another 4,500 were shot out of hand.
Still, economic collaboration in France with the Germans had been so widespread (on all levels of society) that there had to be a realization that an entire nation could not be brought to trial. Only a few years before, there had been many a sincere and well-meaning Frenchmanas in Belgium, England, and throughout Europewho believed National Socialism to be the wave of the future, indeed, the only hope for curing the many desperate social, political, and economic ills of the time. France, along with other occupied countries, did contribute volunteers for the fight against Russia. Then there were many other Frenchmen, the majority, who resignedly felt there was no way the Germans could be pushed back across the Rhine.
I have been passed this large attendee list - please click here and be patient to download what is a 6Mb PDF file
The Single Market programme was the 1980's relaunch of the economic and ultimately political integration of Europe. So-called Father of the EU, [see Mike Peters' paper for more on his role] Jean Monnet, had always felt it crucial to rein back big business. The single market programme turned this policy on its head. The relaunch document (see below) was prepared by Philips Industries in Holland and researched by unnamed Philips staff. The staff were told to "imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe."
Few realise how pivotal the 2000 Bilderberg chairman, Viscount Etienne Davignon, was in this process. As European Commissioner for Industry and the Internal Market from 1977 to 1980 he was perfectly placed to put big business in the driving seat of European policy. In 1985, as Industry Commissioner, he challenged Pehr Gyllenhammar, CEO of Volvo, (also administrator of United Technologies, Vice President of the Aspen Institute and one of the five partners of Kissinger Associates) to organise a group of the top European businessmen to lobby the Commission. Davignon argued that the Commission would be obliged to respond to the demands of some of the largest European industrialists. The Gyllenhammar group was to become the highly influential European Round Table of Industrialists or ERT, drawing up policy for Europe.
On January 11, 1985, in Brussels, Wisse Dekker, CEO of Phillips, unveiled a plan, "Europe 1990", before an audience of 500 people including many of the newly appointed EC commissioners. The plan laid out in precise terms the steps needed in four key areas - trade facilitation (elimination of border formalities), opening up of public procurement markets, harmonization of technical standards, and fiscal harmonization (elimination of the fiscal VAT frontiers) -- to open up a European Market in five years. For the first time a plan was produced which identified some 50 measures needed to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade and to relaunch the European Market. The Dekker paper was revolutionary -- not only because it was proposed by the head of a major multinational, but because it produced what had escaped national and European policymakers -- a simple plan for a unified market.
The Dekker paper was an internal Philips project led by Dekker's government affairs representative in Brussels, Coen Ramaer. It was the result of the company's growing dissatisfaction with the inability of government officials -- national or EC -- to produce a concrete proposal for a European market. While Mitterrand was promoting an industrial initiative, there were no specifics to the French President's plan. Moreover, when the Commission did produce a comprehensive package of proposals in late 1984, there was no outpouring of support for the initiative. The Commission document developed by Commissioner Narjes listed hundreds of pre-existing pieces of legislation -- ranging from standardisation to social actions to environmental issues -- deemed necessary for the creation of an internal market. Business leaders, while pleased that a package was produced, found the Commission package "unwieldy" and lacking "a precise time-table." Moreover, there was no strategy to ensure its implementation and no rationale for industrial growth. It became apparent to the heads of multinationals that industry needed to produce its own concrete program.
With Dekker's support, Ramaer assembled four Philips experts who had long dealt with the four key areas later outlined in the Dekker speech. As Ramaer explains, he instructed the men to:
"imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe and that you have decided that the job must be done in five years. And they [the experts] started out "but this is impossible! Be realistic!" And I told them that I couldn't care less if we were realistic or not.
Once they had picked up this idea, they found it fascinating. And they discovered that it could be done -- given the political will, of course." [Interview, September 24th 1992]
Some of the experts set up informal meetings with their counterparts in the Commission to discuss the project and to hammer out key problems. Dekker stressed to Ramaer that the proposals had to be complete -- he did not want the outcome to be simply another speech on the necessity of European integration.
"Europe 1990" was not simply another speech. In addition to introducing a precise agenda, the paper introduced a number of new conceptualisations of what a unified European market might entail. In the trade facilitation area, for example, the "ultimate goal" of the plan was to create "frontiers without formalities for goods traffic and the replacement of paper documents by data transmission via a telecommunications network used by traders, transporters, banks and statistical and tax authorities..." Of course, to implement this strategy, member states would also be required to allow for the development of a trans-European telecommunications network. The paper left little doubt of the importance of creating a united European market. As Dekker noted in his introduction: "The survival of Europe is in fact at stake."
When the "Europe 1990" plan was presented, it was not for Brussels' consumption alone. Dekker sent the plan, along with a letter, to the heads of government and state of the European Community. One letter went to The Rt Hon Margaret Thatcher, January 7th 1985, from Dr. Wisse Dekker. The letter opens as follows "Europe's industries - both large and small - will have little future if the common market is not created as intended by the Treaties of Rome. This we all know..." Dekker concludes by submitting "these proposals for the consideration of you and your government, hoping that you will promote the action necessary to get Europe out of the deadlock in which it has been for a number of years. You will agree that this is an urgent matter. There is little time left to correct the consequences of a lack of dynamism in the past decade.
[from footnote - Margaret Thatcher refused to meet with ERT who were promoting 'Europe 2000'.]
Any research into the subject of the Common Market is immediately confronted by a veil of confusing acronyms: E-this, E-that and E-the other. True, the Common Market - or the EEC, or the EC, or the EU (it transpires that they are all the same at different stages of evolvement) - must be one of the most complex, if not the most complex bureaucracy ever created. That complexity and the constant political bickering over its very raison d'etre has tended to distract public attention away from a proper understanding of it - and to achieve this understanding, it is essential to recapitulate the events leading to its birth - viewed from within the context of the political/economic situation of the post-World War 2 period
The political situation was one of ideological confrontation between the West and the USSR: between Capitalism and Marxism (the question as to whether the USSR was a marxist state or not is irrelevant here inasmuch as the West - and particularly America - perceived it to be such). Again, the term 'confrontation' may at first seem to be an overstatement as the West and the USSR had just emerged from a war in which they had been allies, but it must be recalled that this alliance had been one of circumstance and convenience, as events in the immediate pre-war period clearly demonstrated. The French and the British had favoured a policy of appeasement towards Germany, whereas the USSR - well aware that it was Hitler's target (see Mein Kampf) - favoured a policy of confrontation backed by an alliance with France and Britain. As disclosed in the Alger Hiss trial in 1949, the US Ambassador ot France, William Bullitt, in January 1938, had reported to his State Department that the French Foreign Minister, Yvon Delbos, had told him that the Soviet Ambassador had just informed him (Delbos) that "..if France should begin serious negotiations with Germany, the Soviet Union would come to terms with Germany at once". That France and Britain did not heed that warning until Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia - when by then it was too late - can only be explained by the fact that their policy of appeasement was governed by the anti-communist bias they shared with Germany. They were certainly in no position to claim that they had not been warned when, in August 1939, the Soviet-German non-aggression Pact was signed! It is necessary at this point to recall that the intellectual dichotomy between Capitalism and Marxism of the late nineteenth century had become political confrontation with the advent of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. This invalidates the popularised view of the Cold War as being a post-WW 2 phenomenon.
Another popular misconception is that at the end of the war it was the USSR that had reneged on decisions reached by the Allies (The Big Three) at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 - particularly over the question of the future of Poland. Indeed, this was precisely the reason given, more than once, by the West for their subsequent policy of 'going their own way' - one of the results being the Common Market. It therefore calls for a closer look. The American Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius (FDR's right-hand man at Yalta) later records: "The Soviet Union made more concessions to the United States and Great Britain than were made to the Soviet Union.". Again, on the 27th of February 1945 Churchill, in his speech to the House of Commons, stated: " I know of no government which stands to its obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly that the Soviet Government.". Given this background, it is extraordinary that on the 23rd of April 1945, a fortnight after Roosevelt's death and while Molotov was in America en route to the Founding Conference of the UN, Truman summoned him (Molotov) to the White House and berated him (in Missouri mule-driver's language, to quote the columnist Drew Pearson), accusing the Soviets of failing to adhere to the Yalta agreements, agreements that had been reached only two months previously - and the war was still being fought! (It is not difficult to imagine what Truman's response to the Soviets would have been had the roles of the protagonists in this situation been reversed: mule-driver's language would most certainly have been used!). Furthermore, the following month, immediately after VE Day, Truman cancelled Lend-Lease aid to the USSR, a country that had pledged at Yalta to declare war against Japan 3 months after Germany's defeat - namely, on the 8th of August...on the 6th of August the Americans dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, without previously notifying their Soviet ally of their intention so to do.
So why this public switch in America's attitude? It must be appreciated that the US was then (as it still is) a corporate state. In his first two years in office, of the 125 administrative posts appointed by Truman: 49 were bankers, industrialists and financiers; 17 were corporate lawyers; and 31 were high-ranking military officers. True, he had inherited a similarly oriented administration from Roosevelt, but the war had been profitable enough to sedate the latter's corporate cohorts - and Roosevelt an excellent diplomat. Now, the European war was over, Roosevelt dead, and a successfully tested atomic bomb to hand. And when it is recalled that in July 1941, Truman, on learning of the German invasion of the USSR, had stated that: " if we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia; and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as possible." (as reported in the New York Times on the 24th of July 1941), then the Americans' actions noted above are comprehensible. There would certainly be no more co-operation with the Red Enemy!
Talk of international unity was relegated to the posturings of diplomats and officials within the halls of the UN - much as it had been under the League of Nations between the wars. European integration was the call heard more frequently in the world outside. This call was by no means a new one, but before 1939 it had been of an amorphous nature with religious (mainly Catholic) overtones - hardly surprising given the Vatican's centuries-long dominion over Europe under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire which, in an historical sense, had not long ended. The Pan-European Union (Pan Europa) formed by the Habsburgian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1923 was such a one. During the war there had been other instances of movement towards European unity or federation which, because of their common aim, contributed something towards the eventual birth of the Common Market - even though it may not have been of a direct nature. After all, there would be the inevitable intermingling of ideas of those participating within the various groups formed. The call by André Malraux and Georges Bidault in 1941 for a post-war federal style European New Deal - excluding the Soviet Union - was such a one. There were others, but there was no possibilty of fulfilment before war's end, anway.
At war's end, the West European nations emerged economically bankrupted; the USSR with its infrastructure decimated; and America with three-quarters of the world's invested capital and two-thirds of the world's industrial capacity (thanks in no small measure to the war). On the one hand, a group of nations in desperate need of reconstruction - and on the other hand a rich nation with the capacity to satisfy that need. On the face of it, the problem so posited carried within it a built-in solution - but there was one main obstacle to such a resolution: namely, one of those nations was the USSR. The problem here for corporate America was that, although it had no intention of acceding to the Soviet's request for assistance, both countries were still part of the Big Three Alliance. Indeed, at the Potsdam Conference in mid-july 1945, the USSR had acceded to the American's call for the establishment of a Council of Ministers which was duly set up, and although relations between West and East became more strained with each subsequent Foreign ministerial meeting, peace treaties with the ex-Nazi satellite nations (Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary and Romania) were signed by the Big-Three in October 1946.
To appreciate more fully the events that followed, it must be recalled that Britain at the end of the war had, by military intervention, supplanted the popular left-wing Greek movement EAM with the right-wing dictatorship of Tsaldaris - and had thereby found itself enmeshed in a civil war it could no longer afford to finance. On the 24th of February 1947 it notified America of its intention to withdraw from Greece, and Truman immediately told Clark Clifford, a corporate lawyer (later to be special attorney to Du Pont, GE, Standard Oil, TWA and RCA), to draft what was subsequently known as the Truman Doctrine Speech.
The next Foreign ministers meeting in Moscow, beginning on the 10th of March 1947, turned out to be a critical one in East-West relations. In the afterglow of the Satellite Peace Treaties signed some 5 months previously, the negotiators and staff met in Moscow in a hopeful mood to discuss such questions as German unity, disarmament, and an end to the Soviet occupation of Austria. As eye-witness correspondent Howard K. Smith wrote: " Molotov proved uncommonly conciliatory in the opening discussion on rules and procedure and yielded his own suggestions first to those of Marshall, then to those of Bevin. The Russians had undoubtedly assumed that all was well and that things would go according to prescription. Stalin even told Secretary of State Marshall that ..'these were only the first skirmishes and brushes of recconnaisance forces'..Then, right on top of the Conference - two days after it had opened - burst the bombshell of the Truman doctrine speech in which President Truman had said that 'nearly every nation must choose between' the two worlds. It sounded like an ultimatum to the rest of Europe to be with us or be counted against us. That wiped the smiles off the Russian's faces. "
That had, indeed, been Truman's message to his Congress - and the USSR. Now the main obstacle to the flow of American capital investment into Europe had been removed and was now to be activated by means of the Marshall Plan as proclaimed by Marshall at Harvard University 3 months later on the 5th of June 1947. This speech called upon the Europeans to draw up plans for economic recovery which the Americans would then finance. He had also stated in his speech that: " our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos". But in saying this had he forgotten that two months before, as later revealed by Walt Rostrow (Special Assistant to the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe from 1947 to 1949): " On April the 29th, the day after his report to the nation on the failure of the Moscow Conference, Secretary Marshall instructed the Policy Planning Staff to prepare a general plan for American aid in the reconstruction of Western Europe "? No mention here of Eastern Europe or the USSR. But in any case, had not the United Nations been created with just such a scenario in mind? So why by-pass it? Again,Walt Rostow:"..there was even in being an organisation dedicated to European economic co-operation - the Economic Commission for Europe - the ECE was, however, an organisation of the United Nations, with Soviet and Eastern European countries as members. Its very existence posed a basic question. Should an effort be made to embrace all of Europe in a new enterprise of reconstruction, or should the lesson of the Moscow Conference be read as indicating that the only realistic alternative was for the West to accept the split and to strengthen the area outside Stalin's grip? ".(Remember, Rostow had served in the ECE). This decision to by-pass the UN aroused the suspicions of the Soviets, suspicions that were confirmed at the Paris Conference of the Committee of European Economic Co-operation (CEEC) called in July 1947 to discuss the administration of Marshall aid. Molotov walked out after two days attendance.
A closer look at Marshall's planning staff is revealing. The committee charged with formulating the Marshall Plan was as follows: Chairman - Henry Stimson (ex-Sec. of State & war; Wall st. lawyer; Dir. of Council on Foreign Relations); Exec. C'tte. Chm. - Robert Patterson (ex-Sec. of War); Exec. C'tte. - Dean Acheson (Under Sec. of State; corporate lawyer of Covington & Burling); Winthrop Aldrich (Banker & uncle of Rockefeller bros.); James Carey (CIO Sec. Treasurer); Herbert Lehman (Lehman Bros. Investment); Philip Reed (GE Exec.); Herbert Bayard Swope (ex-Editor & brother of ex-Pres. GE); David Dubinsky (Labor Leader). The composition of this planning group confirms what has already been referred to: that the American executive administration had, since the mid-thirties been heavily staffed with corporate executives - men who, because they were unaccountable to the democratic processes of the country, could more readily act in their own corporate interests. Interests, moreover, that were co-ordinated to a high degree by interlinked membership of numerous advisory councils, Foundations and other forms of quangoes whose common affinity was obeisance to Profit.
Here, two points need to be emphasised: the importance that America attached to the Marshall Plan, and the fact that the Common Market could not have evolved into the form it subsequently adopted without the Marshall aid. The US Congress duly authorized this aid by passing the Economic Co-operation Act (ECA) on the 3rd of April 1948, and Paul Hoffman (Studebaker, Ford Foundation & co-founder of the Committee for Economic Development in 1942) was subsequently appointed Administrator of the aid program - and since ECA approval was required before such aid funds could be supplied, this allowed US planners to influence directly the direction of economic change in Europe.
Meamwhile, as a result of the above-mentioned CEEC Conference in Paris, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was formed in order to determine the allocation of Marshall aid. The American desire was for a more integrated organisation than the Europeans were prepared to accept. As Paul Hoffman put it: "The substance of such integration would be the formation of a large single market within such quantative restrictions of movement of goods, monetary barriers to the flow of payments and eventually all tarrifs are permanently swept away". This was a scenario within which corporate America could move its capital at will, and, as such, a statement reflecting blatant self interest. Indeed, this message was further driven home by another ECA official, Richard Bissel, at whose instigation the OEEC set up the European Payments Union (EPU) in September 1950 in order to facilitate intra-European trade, and provide a basis for European integration and monetary union. (One interesting point here: good ecenomist he may have been, in1950, Bissel was no military strategist when, in 1961, as CIA Deputy Director of Planning, he oversaw the Cuban Bay-of-Pigs fiasco!). The Europeans, some of whom were still in the time-warp of Empire, and reluctant to relinquish any of their individual sovereign rights, opposed further integration. This not only meant that the aid became a scramble for dollars, but, more crucially , posed an obstacle to the American's aim as laid out by Hoffman. This called for a change of mind on the part of the dissedent Europeans, which would eventually be accomplished primarily through economic necessity - but also by a little-help-from-my-friends. Help that, initially, would be of a non-governmental nature, given the already noted opposition of governments whose hands, in any case, would be full coping with their day-to-day, short-term problems. Use would be made of the numerous lobbying groups formed in the aftermath of the war as a result of earlier calls for European Union.
The earliest of these groups, and one which was to play a significant role in alleviating any discord among the Europeans, was the Independent League for Economic Co-operation (ILEC) - still in existence today, but now known as the European League for Economic Co-operation). This lobby group, ostensibly motivated by its desire to find an economic solution to Europes' problems - as implied by its title - was responsible for the subsequent establishment in May 1949 of the Council of Europe (COE) which, contrary to the aspirations of those who had laid the foundation for it at the Congress for Europe the previous year, ended up as a purely consultative body with no economic mandate, due primarily to the reluctance of Britain and the Scandinavians (as noted above). Be that as it may, the COE was established in Strasbourg with all the key Europeans onboard - and is still in existence today. Indeed, it is often referred to as the Mother of the Common Market - with some justification: was not its flag adopted by the EC in May 1986? To gain a clearer understanding of the above, it is necessary to take a closer look at the means by which the ILEC evolved into the COE. ILEC was the brainchild of a 60-year-old Pole, Dr. Josef Hieronym Retinger, a man with a history intriguing enough to warrant a biography. Suffice it to say here that, as a result of comprehensive political dealings in both Europe and the New World stretching from pre-WW 1 to post-WW 2, he had become the archetypal broker - an eminence grise. In Sir Edward Beddington-Behren's words: " I remember in the US his picking up the telephone and immediately making an appointment with the President ; and in Europe he had complete entrée in every political circle as a kind of right". Having set up the ILEC with the assistance of Paul Van Zeeland (Belgian Prime Minister-tobe), Retinger went to America at the end of 1946 seeking financial backing for the group. In his own words ( as reported by his biographer and Personal Assistant, John Pomian): " At that time I found in America a unanimous approval for our ideas among financiers, businessmen and politicians: Mr. Leffingwell, senior partner in J.P.Morgan's; Nelson and David Rockefeller; Alfred Sloan, Director of the Dodge Motor Company...(et al)...and especially my old friend Adolph Berle Jnr. were all in favour, and Berle agreed to lead the American section". (Berle was a prestigious corporate lawyer).
In March 1947, ILEC was established at a meeting in New York, with Van Zeeland as President of the Central Council and Retinger as General Secretary. In December 1947, as a result of Retinger's approaches to a number of other groups of similar aims of European unity - either of a co-operative or federalist nature (Churchill's UEM; Coudenhove-Kalergi's IPU; the Catholic NEI; the CFEU and the UEF), the the International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (ICMEU) was formed, with Duncan-Sandys (Churchill's son-in-law) as Chairman and Retinger as Honorary Secretary. This Committee, more commonly known as the European Movement (EM), convened the Congress of Europe in the Hague in May 1948 which, in turn, established the Council of Europe (COE) by the Treaty of Westminster in May 1949 (as already noted).
In July 1948 Retinger and Duncan-Sandys went to America to seek financial backing for the EM, accompanied by Winston Churchill and Paul Henri Spaak, the Belgian Prime Minister. This resulted in the launching of the American Committee on a United Europe (ACUE) at a luncheon in honour of Churchill on the 29th of March 1949. The significance of ACUE lay in its stewardship: Chairman: William Donovan (ex-Director of the OSS); Vice-Chairman: Allen Dulles (then Deputy Director of the CIA); Secretary: George Franklin (Director of the Council for Foreign Relations); and Executive Director: Thomas Braden (Head of CIA Division on International Organisations). Funds for the EM (by now transformed into the COE) were soon flowing into the COE's headquarters in Brussels - most of it from State Department's secret funds. ACUE was also the channel subsequently used to fund the Youth Campaign for European Unity, formed in1950 by Retinger and Duncan-Sandys as a result of a deal they had made with John McCloy US High Commissioner for Germany (later Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank), and Robert Murphy, US Ambassador in Brussels (later consultant on Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board). Between 1951 and 1959 this group received approximately 1.5 million pounds.
Perhaps the most intriguing of Retinger's contacts during this period was Dr. Hermann Josef Abs, who then set up the German section of ILEC. Abs, as Director of the Deutsche Bank during the Third Reich, had been responsible for laying out the economic base the Nazis would adopt on attaining hegemony over Europe and the USSR. Arrested for war crimes in January 1946, he was released three months later on the intervention of the British - who then appointed him economic advisor in their zone! More pertinently, in March 1948 Abs was appointed Deputy Head of the Loan Corporation as well as President of Bank Deutsche Lander, and, as such, was in charge of the allocation of Marshall aid to German industry. Another fascinating link was that, among the 40-or-so Directorships Abs had held, one was in the I.G.Farben conglomerate which had been a client of the corporate law firm Sullivan & Cromwell - whose senior partners were the Dulles brothers.
The end result of the foregoing was the Council of Europe which, although it had failed to create an economic climate in Europe amenable to the free flow of American capital, was nonetheless the first post-war organisation of European unity, and, as such, was of political importance. From now on, in order to create the necessary economic climate, the dissident British and Scandavians would be by-passed. This was accomplished by the formation of the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) in April 1951, the result of the French Prime Minister Paul Schuman's call the previous year for the placing of French and German coal & steel production under the control of a supranational body, by which means the French hoped to gain some control over the future of Germany, and thus, at the very least, hinder the American's plan to re-arm the latter. Schuman, born in the Alsace region, served in the German army in WW 1 and subsequently adopted French nationality. He later joined the right-wing group Energie of professor Louis de Fur - who was later to serve under Pétain during the Vichy régime.
In July 1967 the six ECSC members, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Holland, formed two more analagous bodies: the European Economic Community (EEC - or Common Market), and the European Atomic Energy Committee (EURATOM). Thus, in spite of the non-membership of Britain and the Scandinavians, the Common Market was born - later to evolve into the European Community (EC) in 1986, and finally into the European Union (EU) in 1992.
The ECSC (or Schuman Plan), which entailed a close Franco-German relationship, exemplified on the one hand the important role played by the coal and steel industries in their respective countries, and on the other hand the role played by post-war American aid in the resurrection of those industries. But it must be kept in mind that aid was being distributed as early as 1946, primarily in the form of grants, and prior to the distribution of Marshall aid. The popular conception of this aid is that it was primarily for the reconstruction of West European democracies ravaged by war. This was not so. From 1946 to 1951 five right-wing dictatorhips (Greece, Turkey, South Vietnam, South Korea and Formosa), with a total population of 75 million, received more American economic aid in grants than Western Europe, which had a larger population. Again, the five dictatorships received 7.9 billion dollars in military aid (this excludes such aid to South Korea during the war there) - whereas Europe received 7.5 billion dollars in military aid, of which 4 billion dollars went to France (2.5 billion dollars of which was for her war in Indochina), and 0.5 billion dollars for fascist Spain (which had received 1 billion dollars in economic aid). From 1946 to 1953 West Germany received 3.6 billion dollars in economic aid. It is thus hardly surprising that it was debtor France who formulated the idea leading to the ECSC (an organisation whose federalist structure conformed to America's wishes), and that fellow-debtor Germany was a willing accomplice.
The aid so allocated reflected corporate America's political orientation in a nutshell, and a further example was the warning given by Secretary of State Marshall - aimed primarily at France and Italy - that no aid would be forthcoming if communists gained any positions of political power. Result: the Italian communists lost the general election in 1948 (which they were expected to win); and French communists were removed from cabinet posts they already held. Then, one year after the implementation of the Marshall Plan, NATO was created, ostensibly to act as a shield against Soviet expansion westwards. However, the Americans were well aware that the Soviets posed no serious military threat in the post-war period: had they not for the last three years of the war been supplying the USSR, under the Lend-Lease program, with military equipment that the latter lacked? Moreover it is inconceivable that they were not aware of the devastation caused by the strategy of Total War waged by the German army on Soviet soil. A cursory glance at the statistics of that devastation would have been enough to convince them of the improbability of any military aggression from that quarter. The passage of time has proved that NATO's purpose was primarily political, not military. Had it been the latter, it would have been made redundant on the collapse of the USSR. Its political role assumed two functions: primarily to ensure the hegemony of American capital (or American Leadership as propounded by all post-war US Presidents - and most recently by Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, in her address to the House); and secondarily, to satisfy the more immediate need (at the time of its foundation) for an organisation that would embrace all the key European nations, including Germany and the then dissident Britain.
The Truman doctrine of containment of the USSR having struck a sympathetic chord among some European governments, and Marshall Aid having bolstered that sympathy with the added sense of indebtedness, NATO was the logical outcome. As noted above, this would be an ostensibly military organisation with a command structure fenced with statutory clauses which ensured American control - to say nothing of the financial largesse that would accompany it - but the American's plan to induct Germany into the organisation and thereby re-arm her met with stiff European resistance. And the setting up by the French of the ECSC and its supplementary European Defence Community (EDC) did not help matters. Enter Josef Hieronym Retinger - once again. As a result of his approaches in the early 1950's to the most influential West European leaders, he and Prince Bernhard of Holland went to Washington in 1953 to lobby support from Walter Bedell Smith (Dir. of the CIA) and Charles Jackson (National Security Advisor to Eisenhower) for a group that would serve as a forum for lobbying at the highest political level in order to ensure that consensual policies would be adopted by the members of NATO in particular. A US committee was formed: John Coleman (Chm. Burroughs Corp.), David Rockefeller (Chase Manhattan Bank), Dean Rusk (Rockefeller Foundation), Henry Heinz II, Joseph Johnson (Pres. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and George Ball (Corporate lawyer & partner of Lehman Bros.). This committee, in turn, resulted in the formation of the Bilberberg Group in May 1954. Since that date, all doors to the seats of power in the West have been accessible to the Bilderberg. According to George McGhee (ex-US Ambassador to West Germany), who attended all Bilderberg meetings from 1955 to 1967: " The Treaty of Rome which brought the Common Market into being, was nutrured at the Bilderberg meetings.".. Germany Joined NATO on the 6th of May 1955. The movement of American capital could now be facilitated.
This calls for the posing of a very common-sensical question: who benefitted most from the Common Market?. The answer to this question was spelt out clearly by the French newspaper owner Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber in his well-researched book "The American Challenge" of 1967. (In fairness, it should be noted here that the message of the book was the somewhat naive one that Europe should copy the American way of doing-business!). The following are taken from that book, and, unless otherwise noted, are as of the year 1967:
(1) America had invested 14 billion dollars in fixed assets in Europe - working capital being as much again (US Dept. of Commerce).
(2) From 1958 to 1957 " American corporations have invested 10 billion dollars in Western Europe - more than a third of their total investment abroad. Of the 6000 new businesses started overseas by Americans during that period, half were in Europe."
(3) " The US Department of Commerce finds it 'striking' that from1965 to 1966 American investment rose by 17 percent in the US, 21 percent in the rest of the world, and 40 percent in the Common Market".
(4) By1963 "American firms in France controlled 40 percent of the petroleum market, 65 percent of films & photographic paper, 65 percent of farm machinery, 65 percent of telecommunications equipment, and 45 percent of synthetic rubber. (quoted from Foreign Investment in France by Giles Bertain)."
(5) "As early as 1965 the Commerzbank estimated American-controlled investments in Germany at 2 billion dollars, while the gross capital of all firms quoted on the German stock exchange was only 3.5 billion dollars".
(6) "More than half of the US subsidiaries in Europe belong to the 340 American firms appearing on the list of the 500 largest corporations in the world. Three American giants are responsible for 40 percent of direct American investment in France, Germany and Britain.
(7) "During 1965 the Americans invested 4 billion dollars in Europe. This is where the money came from:
1. Loans from the European capital market (Euro-issues) and direct credits
from European countries - 55 percent.
2. Subsidies from European governments and internal financing from local earnings - 35 percent.
3. Direct dollar transfers from the United States - 10 percent. Thus, nine-tenths of American investment in Europe is financed from European sources. In other words, we pay them to buy us".
(8) "In the words of M. Boyer de la Giroday of the Brussels Commission: 'American investment in Europe has its own special nature. When we set up the European Economic Committee (EEC) we did something useful, but simple and still incomplete. So far its major result has been to speed our economic prosperity by creating the most favourable climate for a growing invasion of American industries. They are the only ones to have acted on the logic of the Common Market'".
Implicit in the truism that the child is the product of its parents is the equally valid truism that in order to know the child well, one must know its parents. In the case of the Common Market, in view of the incestuous nature of its parentage (to say nothing of the strange midwives attending its birth), it is hardly surprising that it turned out to ba a most uncommom market.
The following statistics illustrating US direct investment abroad in more recent times (in millions of dollars) will be seen to be of direct pertinence to the above critique - to say nothing of exposing the true nature of Britain's Special Relationship with America!
C.William Domhoff : Higher Circles (Vintage Books 1971)
Robert Eringer: The Global Manipulators (Pentacle Books 1980)
David Horowitz: The Free World Colossus (Hill & Wang 1965)
John Pomian: Joseph Retinger (Sussex University Press 1972)
W.W.Rostow: The US in the World Arena (Harper 1960)
J-J Servan-Schreiber: The American Challenge (Hamish Hamilton 1968)
John Chabot Smith: Alger Hiss (Penguin Books 1977)
H.K.Smith: The State of Europe (Knopf 1949)
Alexander Werth: Russia at War (Pan Books 1965)
Pasymowski & Gilbert: Bilderberg, Rockefeller & the CIA (Temple Free Press 1968)
Statistical Abstract of the US 1996 - 116th Edition (The National Data Book)
On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take control of the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor of Foreign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Council on Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposed forming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas of Security, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The State Department accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executive director.
In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department. The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. It was organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies project. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and Security Sections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hired by the State Department to work in the new division. These men also were permitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respective Council groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research.
In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Council on Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary Cordell Hull, the vice chairman, Under Secretary Sumner Wells, Dr. Leo Pasvolsky (director of the Division of Special Research) was appointed Executive Officer. Several experts were brought in from outside the Department. The outside experts were Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies members; Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Benjamin V. Cohen, Norman H. Davis, and James T. Shotwell.
In total there were 362 meetings of the War and Peace Studies groups. The meetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters -- the Harold Pratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council's wartime work was confidential.17
In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace Studies Political Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaks conference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and members of Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at the San Francisco conference which ensured the establishment of the United Nations.
In 1947 Council on Foreign Relations members George Kennan, Walter Lippmann, Paul Nitze, Dean Achenson, and Walter Krock took part in a psycho-political operation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP included a "anonymous" letter credited to a Mr. X, which appeared in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door for the CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against the threat of Soviet expansion. George Kennan was the author of the letter. The Marshall Plan should have been called the Council on Foreign Relations Plan. The so-called Marshall Plan and the ensuing North Atlantic Treaty Organization defined the role of the United States in world politics for the rest of the century.
In 1950 another PSYOP resulted in NSC-68, a key cold war document. The NSC (National Security Council) didn't write it -- the Department of State Policy Planning Staff did. The cast of characters included CFR members George Kennan, Paul Nitze, and Dean Achenson. NSC-68 was given to Truman on April 7, 1950. NSC-68 was a practical extension of the Truman doctrine. It had the US assume the role of world policeman and use 20 per cent of its gross national product ($50 billion in 1953) for arms. NSC-68 provided the justification -- the WORLD WIDE COMMUNIST THREAT!
NSC-68 realized a major Council on Foreign Relations aim -- building the largest military establishment in Peace Time History. Within a year of drafting NSC-68, the security-related budget leaped to $22 billion, armed forces manpower was up to a million -- CFR medicine, munition, food, and media businesses were humming again. The following year the NSC-68 budget rose to $44 billion. In fiscal 1953 it jumped to $50 billion. Today (1997) we are still running $300 billion dollar defense budgets despite Russia giving up because it went bankrupt.
America would never turn back from the road of huge military spending. Spending that included the purchase of radioactive fallout on American citizens in the 50's, and buying thermonuclear waste from the Russians as we approach the year 2000. Spending resulting in a national debt of $5.5 Trillion Dollars that continues to grow, and interest payments of over $270 billion a year. Is the Council on Foreign Relations trying to make the United States economically vulnerable to influence from outside sources? Isn't that treason? Is the Royal Institute of International Affairs doing the same thing to Britain?
Visit the Roundtable Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807
How many Secretaries of State belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations? See CFR Secretaries of State http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/wwcfrsos.html
Retinger is on the right
1952 started badly. The Cold War was at its height. Pressure for German rearmament was mounting and was creating tensions and stresses in Europe. The Korean war dragged on, and so did war in Indo-China. While neutralist feelings were spreading in Europe, McCarthyism was growing in the United States. On both sides of the Atlantic there was good deal of reciprocal mistrust. The newly born Atlantic Alliance and NATO were seriously threatened as a result. A rift between a scared and confused Europe and an America over-confident in its power boded ill for the future. Everything that had been so painfully built up in the West since the War would be adversely affected.
Many people, including Retinger, were concerned about this situation, but could see no solution. What could possibly be done on both sides of the Atlantic at a moment when governments themselves seemed to be drifting apart?
Retinger always believed that public opinion follows the lead of influential individuals. He much preferred working through a few carefully selected people to publicity on a massive scale. Perhaps it would be possible to bring together a group of people, from among the most influential men in their respective fields, and cause them to take an active interest in redressing the situation both in Europe and America. but although few would disagree with this admirable aim, most people would be reluctant to devote much time to something so vague, Any proposal would, therefore, have to be sufficiently attractive and, above all, demonstrate that it was effective.
In the early part of 1952 Retinger consulted some of his friends and in particular Paul van Zeeland and Paul Rykens, who was then Chairman of Unilever. They shared his views and offered some advice. It seemed that the problem was real and serious enough and many people were concerned about it. It affected every country and every party alike. But for that very reason anything that might be done about it could appear suspect should it be identified with any major country or any political party. The principal difficulty was, therefore, to find the right kind of person to play a leading part. Retinger thought about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, whom he had met briefly during the War and later during the Congress of the Hague. The Prince was interested in politics and supported European Unity. His official position of prince Consort limited his freedom of action but he was always ready to help good causes. He was universally liked and was popular in America. His support would be invaluable.
And so, in May, Paul Rykens, who had the ear of the Prince, arranged an appointment. During their first meeting, the Prince was sympathetic and intrigued by the project. He wanted to think it over and consult his advisers and friends. Other meetings took place, more people were consulted and soon a small select group of people became involved. In addition to Dr Rykens and Mr van Zeeland it comprised Signor de Gasperi and Ambassador Pietro Quaroni for Italy, Hugh Gaitskell and Sir Colin Gubbins for Great Britain, Antoine Pinay and Guy Mollet for France, Max Brauer, the Mayor of Hamburg, and Rudolf Mueller for Germany, Panajotis Pipinelis for Greece and Ole Bjorn Kraft for Denmark.
The first meeting was arranged in Paris on 25 September 1952. Although de Gasperi could not come, the presence of all the others was more than enough to draw attention and create a stir. Paris under the Fourth Republic - when France was involved in colonial wars and government crises succeeded one another rapidly - lived in an atmosphere of permanent conspiracy and intrigue. However ridiculous it might be everybody had to take it into account and play the part. In our case it was said that should it be known that Mr Pinay was meeting Mr Mollet grave trouble would result for both. But also if anybody asked questions it would be extremely difficult to explain what the meeting was all about and why so many important people were taking part. It was purely exploratory and it was too early to say what the outcome would be. In the circumstances it was thought preferable to keep it all as discreet as possible.
The meeting went very well and everybody agreed that there was an urgent need to do something to improve relations with the United States. The method of doing so would gradually become clearer. In any case it was necessary to have further consultations and establish contacts in the United States. In the meantime more people and more countries should be brought into the circle and papers should be prepared on the feelings and position in each European county. It would set people thinking and might yield interesting results.
Many years later, Ambassador Quaroni, writing on Retinger, described this occasion as follows:
"I also recall the first meeting to which I was invited. We were squeezed round a very large table in a tiny room; we agreed on the principle, but did not know how to execute it, how to organize things, whom to turn to, how to find the wherewithal. It was not very clear-cut. Suggestions issued forth from Retinger's mouth like machine gun fire. They were not all excellent, it is true, but when one was refuted, he had ten more up his sleeve. He was probably the only one among us who had really studied the question on both sides of the Atlantic and who had specific ideas on the subject. With his pleasant, old schemer's manners, he persuaded us to accept most of what he wanted.'
The whole of 1953 was spent on further contacts and consultations - there were more meetings - and a couple of visits to the United States. There, things were a little slow to start, mainly because people were absorbed in the Presidential elections. Once these were over everything went smoothly. General Eisenhower, the new President, as well as some of his closest collaborators had a recent experience of Europe and appreciated its problems. Also they knew Prince Bernhard well and held him in high esteem. As a result an American group was quickly brought together under the Chairmanship of the late Mr John Coleman, President of the Burroughs Corporation, assisted by Mr Joseph Johnson, Director of the Carnegie Foundation.
Then in May 1954 the first conference took place in a secluded hotel called the Bilderberg, near Arnhem in Holland. There were about eighty participants, including some twenty Americans. It was a very high-powered gathering of prominent politicians, industrialists, bankers and eminent public figures, writers, trade unionists and scholars. Prince Bernhard, Paul van Zeeland and John Coleman took the Chair in turn. A certain atmosphere of tense expectation, noticeable when people who are gathered together for the first time warily feel their way, was soon dissipated, thanks largely to the charm, easy manner and sense of humour of the Prince. Speakers were only allowed five minutes at a time which helped to liven up debates, while the pungent interventions of C.D. Jackson, Denis Healey, Lord Boothby and a few others added bite to the discussions.
In addition to the plenary meetings, meals and drinks were occasions for some of the most interesting, stimulating and often amusing exchanges. After three days of living together in this secluded place, which participants left only once, when Prince Bernhard invited them to cocktails at the Royal Palace nearby,m a certain faint but discernible bond was created. A new entity was born. But it was difficult to define what it was. Its purpose, its methods and its structure were new and original. They did not bear any analogy and did not fit into any known category. For the time being, for lack of any better term, it was called the Bilderberg Group after the name of the hotel in which the first meeting took place.
This name has stuck and is still used today. Since the first conference in 1954 many others have been held under the Chairmanship of Prince Bernhard, usually at yearly intervals and each time in a different country, including the United States and Canada. The subjects discussed vary, but always cover the problems which confront the Western countries and which are apt to create friction and divergencies between them. It is perhaps the best forum possible to debate the great issues of the day. It is certainly one of the best informed assemblies, and after a Bilderberg week-end one leaves with a feeling of knowing not only the points of view within the different countries but, what is more important, having had an insight into the inner feelings of the principal actors.
Yet the importance of the Bilderberg Group stems from the people who take part. At each successive meeting, new persons are invited. The circle thus grows larger and never gets stale. Only the inner circle, called the Steering Committee, which is responsible for the preparation of the meetings, remains the same and even there a change of guard occasionally takes place. During the first three or four years the all-important selection of participants was a delicate and difficult task. This was particularly so as regards politicians. It was not easy to persuade top office holders to come. The occasion was interesting and pleasant enough but was it worth a four day foreign journey? Here Retinger displayed great skill and an uncanny ability to pick out people who in a few years time were to accede to the highest offices in their respective countries. In this way after a few years, when the fame of the conferences began to spread, getting people to come was no longer a problem. Rather the opposite was the case. Then the most frequent problem was how to keep them out without creating offence.
After several years the Bilderberg Group could claim an impressive array of statesmen and potentates of all sorts, who at one stage or another have been brought into its circle. No names need be quoted - and indeed the rule was not to - but it would suffice to say that today there are very few key figures among governments on both sides of the Atlantic who have not attended at least one of these meetings. What is perhaps more important is that everyone is flattered to receive an invitation.
The character, the strength and the vitality of any group depends on the growth of a network of personal relations between its members. In the early days Retinger was largely the focus and the intermediary in addition to being the moving spirit of it all. He had plenty of initiative and was full of ideas - sometimes too much so for less adventurous spirits. But also, involved as he was in many affairs, he often had things up his sleeve which were of real or potential advantage to many members of the Group.
Within a few years, however, Prince Bernhard became the true centre of all the loyalties and affective bonds. At first, he had to step warily, establishing precedents and getting to know people, most of whom, by the very nature of things, felt diffident towards their royal Chairman. Time was needed to build confidence an that intimate mutual understanding necessary for sure-footed management.
To build the whole group around the person of the Prince was a master-stroke on the part of Retinger. Prince Bernhard has great qualities of heart and mind, whose harmonious blend results in an enormous personal charm which few people can resist. Also his position is unique. As a royal prince he naturally takes precedence without arousing anybody's envy. He is politically impartial, while the fact that he represents a small country is also reassuring. There were also many intangible but very real and very great advantages in having a royal prince as Chairman, and to illustrate this it might not be inappropriate to quote from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta:
Though men of rank may useless seem,
They do good in their generation,
They make the wealthy upstart teem
With Christian love and self-negation;
The bitterest tongue that ever lashed
Man's folly, drops with milk and honey,
While Scandal hides her head, abashed,
Brought face to face with Rank and Money!
Although taken out of context this little rhyme makes a point which is likely to remain valid for many generations to come.
How useful and effective have the Bilderberg Conferences really been? Much , of course, depended on the circumstances at the time. The meeting held in Florida in February 1957 was, for instance, very much apropos to help heal the bruises after the Suez disaster. Lord Kilmuir, who was then Lord Chancellor, recalls in his memoirs, that having been expressly sent there by the Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, he found it an immensely useful occasion for talks with high-ranking Americans.
Certainly it created countless extremely helpful contacts between people who bore some of the principal responsibilities for the affairs of their countries both in politics and in economics. Although completely intangible, this is a very important factor in international affairs which sometimes leads to great results. European Unity would not have been possible without a enormous number of personal contacts and confrontations between the political and economic leaders of European countries. There is much less of this between Europe and America and therefore occasions where it takes place are all the more precious.
Moreover, the relationship between the United States and its European partners suffers from a disparity of power, and this is further aggravated by the sheer physical distance between America and Europe. It is a very real factor and whatever the issues of the day might be its influence is constantly felt. Inside Europe, political opinion within a country can be influenced by the views and wishes of other European nations. Governments have to take note of what others think. A good deal of pressure can be brought on a country who is out of step with its partners, and this is almost always effective enough as none is sufficiently strong to disregard others for long. That is why the Common Market or any other European grouping can be made to work.
General de Gaulle was no exception to this rule. It might have seemed as if he could get away with more than anybody else but, in fact, by means of his very skilful diplomacy he managed to bring others round to share his views.
America is in an altogether different position. It towers in the distance, and Europeans, of whatever country, enmeshed as they are in a network of treaties of which America is always the hub, simply feel that they cannot exert the kind of influence nor bring the degree of pressure which their own involvement requires. They can pray, hope and watch but there is not much they can do. Any occasion of talking fully and frankly to top American leaders is particularly useful and important. Hence the very fact that the Bilderberg exists is in itself a factor of some consequence in Atlantic relations.
I remember that, while making a modest start in politics, I tried to explain what to me seemed the most important aspect of some problem to Mr Paul de Auer, an old and experienced Hungarian diplomatist. I must have appeared too intent and gone on for too long. When I finished, Mr de Auer wearily waved his hand and said: 'Monsieur Pomian, in politics those things are important which important people think are important.' By this simple rule the Bilderberg Group is certainly important.
Since the first meeting in Paris in 1952, a slight air of mystery has surrounded the Bilderberg Group. Neither what was said, nor who the participants were, were ever divulged to the Press. Publicity was shunned. Sometimes. Sometimes this contributed to stir curiosity and imagination, sometimes to spread fame, sometimes to spread stories. On many occasions it gave rise to a great variety of amusing incidents.
An innocent one occurred in July 1956. Till then no Turks had participated in the meetings. This gap had to be repaired and Prince Bernhard, who was on good terms with Prime Ministermenderes agreed to introduce Retinger to explain what was wanted. For a variety of reasons the meeting could not be arranged until one day, Prince Bernhard, who was leaving on an African safari, rang up. He had just spoken about it to the Turkish Minister at the Hague and an appointment had been fixed in Turkey in a fortnight's time. The line was bad and Retinger was not sure whether he had understood everything correctly. And so, on our way to istanbul we passed through the Hague to check the arrangements and also to discover how much the Turks knew about the purpose of the visit. They Turkish Minister was most helpful and had organized everything very well, but although he seemed very impressed with the importance of the mission he knew little of what it was about or who on earth Retinger was. On one or two occasions he addressed Retinger as Professor, instead of his usual title of Doctor, but this seemed irrelevant.
In Istanbul, where we arrived the same day, an impressive welcome awaited us, and here again everybody addressed Retinger as Professor. The same thing happened in Ankara, where Retinger first called on the Foreign Minister. All our Turkish hosts were so hospitable and so deferential towards Retinger that we let pass this slip which, after all, seemed perfectly inconsequential. The talk with the Foreign Minister took a good half-hour longer than scheduled. We emerged from it to be greeted by our guide, a pleasant young man from the Protocol Department, who, with a worried look announced that we must hurry as we were late for our next appointment. This was news to us as none had been expected. It turned out that our hosts thought it would please Retinger, who was in Turkey for the first time, to meet his colleagues .... other Professors at the University. It was too late to react. We could not explain that it was all a mistake. Too many people to whom we were indebted for a most hospitable reception would be embarrassed. We set off exchanging worried glances.
At the University we were greeted by the Dean of the Faculty of Law and Economics, accompanied by some twenty professors. Drinks were served and an animated conversation started. Retinger was particulary voluble and I, too, tried to second him as best I could. Our sole aim was not to let any of our hosts ask from which university Professor Retinger came. That would have been awful, for everybody would have lost face. Happily we stood our ground for a good three-quarters of an hour. Suddenly, lunch was announced; but that was too much. We could face it no longer. Retinger pleaded some previous engagement and, exhausted, we beat a hasty retreat to the bar of our hotel where the biggest whiskies were promptly ordered!
Otherwise the visit to Turkey proved very successful, largely thanks to the help and understanding of a very able diplomatist, Ambassador Nuri Birgi who, at that time, was Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry. Two years later the Turks played host to a Bilderberg Conference in a secluded hotel on the magical shores of the Bosphorus.
Although the Bilderberg Group was mainly concerned with problems facing the Atlantic Alliance, Retinger remained, as before, primarily attached to European Unity. His views did not change nor did his involvement get less. His field of action grew wider and as a result he could do more in European affairs. Unfortunately the opportunities to do so were now fewer. Progress in Europe was limited to the Six and all efforts were concentrated on this area. The failure of the European Defence Community in 1955 was followed by the Messina Conference which gave birth to the Common Market. Again Britain refused to join. Instead, seeing the results, she took the initiative of forming the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) grouping the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal who were like-minded in their attitude to European unification. Then followed an attempt to join the two together. It threatened the purpose and existence of the newly formed Common Market and General de Gaulle, who by then had come to power in France, objected. At the same time he firmly set his face against any further extension of the supranational principle. The next phase was to be 'L'Europe des Patries' which at the same time was the Europe of Governments.
The Bilderberg Group was, naturally, a great political asset for Retinger. Thanks to it he could intervene and help most effectively in many matters. Many of his friends sought his advice and since he never refused to help, he participated in the organizing and developing of many undertakings. They all had to do either with 'Europe' or the 'Atlantic'. Among these the European Cultural Foundation and the Atlantic Congress loomed larger as far as time and effort were concerned.
There were also many things he launched himself. One of them had to do with Asia. He sought to find a way of establishing a dialogue between the West and the East, in which philosophers, theologians and political thinkers would take part. Much time and effort was spent on it and many people became involved. The brilliant book L'Aventure Occidentale de l'Homme by his friend Denis de Rougemont, who participated in it all, will long remain as a lone monument connected with this venture. Otherwise it came to nothing.
Then there was also Eastern Europe. After the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, it seemed that a wind of change was beginning to blow throughout the Soviet bloc. Perhaps the evolution might even go far enough for the Bilderberg experience to become relevant to EastWest relations. Retinger always like to proceed empirically and gradually test the ground. In this case it would take a long time and in the meantime he needed to build up his own personal renown. For the first time in his like he felt in need of some publicity for himself. He needed to be noticed and be in a position to impress people in the Eastern bloc. The Nobel Peace prize occurred to him as the best way to do so and some of his friends began to canvass support. But Right at that time priests rather than politicians were getting all the prizes and nothing came of it. Earlier on, in 1956, a letter he wrote to Mr Cyrankiewicz, the then Polish Prime Minister, whom he knew of old, asking for a visa to Poland, remained unanswered. Altogether, in the late fifties, any moves in the direction of Eastern Europe were, in fact, premature. I like to think that in this case as in so many others he anticipated the course of events.
All along Retinger worked closely with Prince Bernhard, to whom he was very deeply devoted. He served his prince faithfully and unsparingly as a kind of self-appointed political courtier, and in turn the Prince was always a most loyal and faithful friend and ally.
In 1957 his health began to decline. It worried him but he did little about it. When he finally retired at the end of 1959 his health was very poor. Yet until a few weeks before he died, on the 12 June 1950, he was sill active. Although he no longer had any responsibilities he never cease making plans with regard to the various causes that were dear to his heart. There was a sharp decline during his last few weeks but even that had no visible effect on his good humour or his interest in men and problems. He was heard in confession and received the last sacraments. In his last months he certainly felt that he had fulfilled his task and had done what he had set out to do except to complete his memoirs. This book might, perhaps, help to fill that gap.
So... Mostly harmless then? [transcriber]
DAILY TELEGRAPH- Sat Dec 21st 1968
A CZECH pilot who was the only survivor of the RAF Liberator crash at Gibraltar in 1943 in which Gen. Sikorski, Polish, Prime Minister, was killed said last night that it was" the slander of the century " to say he was part of a conspiracy to murder the general.
The pilot, Mr. Edward Prchal, formerly a flight lieutenant and now living in California, appeared on the Independent Television pro-gramme "Frost on Friday."
The programme was devoted to a discussion, at times heated, of Sikorski's death. In Rolf Hoch-huth's play, "Soldiers" it is presented as having been engineered by the British Secret Service with the complicity of Sir Winston Churchill.
Meanwhile controversy con-tinues about Carlos Thompson's forthcoming book "The Assas-sination of Winston Churchill," of which extracts were reproduced in The Sunday Telegraph. To-morrow's issue includes extensive correspondence from readers about the Sikorski affair and Hochhuth's treatment of recent history.
In the television programme Sir Winston's grandson, Mr. Winston Churchill, who was in the audience, intervened to demand, passionately that people who accused his grandfather of participating in the conspiracy, should produce evidence instead of "supposition."
Mr. Prchal challenged Mr. David Irving, author of "Acci-dent: the Death of Gen. Sikorski," to, produce "even half an ounce of .real evidence" to support his contention that sabotage caused the crash.
Mr. Prchal said Herr Hochhuth's idea that he had been party to a sabotage plot was not original. "He stole it from Goebbels, within four hours of the' crash.....................[this was transcribed from a fragment of a very old pink front page of the Daily Telegraph, the rest of the article was torn off - ed.]
"In late 1952, Retinger went to America to try the idea out on his American contacts. Among others, he saw such old friends as Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, and Bedel Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explained his proposal, Smith said, Why the hell didnt you come to me in the first place? He quickly referred Retinger to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become Eisenhowers special assistant for psychological warfare. It took a while for Jackson to organize the American wing of the group, but finally, in May 1954, the first conference was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg, a secluded hotel in Holland, near the German border. Prince Bernhard, and Retinger drew up the list of invitees from the European countries, while Jackson controlled the American list."
Prince Bernhard, of The Netherlands, became the first Chairman, and served in this post until scandal forced him to resign in 1974. Dr. Retinger became the first Secretary, and remained so until his death.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, publishes a weekly newspaper titled The Spotlight. At my request, they sent me a reprint of a summary of Bilderberg information, titled Spotlight on the Bilderbergers, Irresponsible Power, published mid-June, 1975. Page 6 of this document states:
"The Congressional Record - US Senate, April 11, 1964, states:
(Speaking) - Mr. (Jacob) Javits - Mr. President, the 13th in a series of Bilderberg meetings on international affairs, in which I participated, was held in Williamsburg, VA, on March 20, 21, and 22.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a background paper entitled The Bilderberg Meetings.
The idea of the Bilderberg meetings originated in the early fifties. Changes had taken place on the international politician and economic scene after World War II. The countries of the Western World felt the need for closer collaboration to protect their moral and ethical values, their democratic institutions, and their independence against the growing Communist threat. The Marshall plan and NATO were examples of collective efforts of Western countries to join hands in economic and military matters after World War II.
In the early 1950s, a number of people on both sides of the Atlantic sought a means of bringing together leading citizens, not necessarily connected with government, for informal discussions of problems facing the Atlantic community. Such meetings, they felt, would create a better understanding of the forces, and trends affecting Western nations, in particular. They believed that direct exchanges could help to clear up differences, and misunderstandings that might weaken the West.
One of the men who saw the need for such discussions was the late (Dr.) Joseph H. (Heironymus) Retinger (as a matter of interest, the name Heironymus is literally translated to be "MEMBER OF THE OCCULT"). In 1952, he approached His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with the suggestion of informal and unofficial meetings to discuss the problems facing the Atlantic community. Others in Europe wholeheartedly supported the idea, and proposals were submitted to American friends to join in the undertaking. A number of Americans, including C. D. Jackson, the late General Walter Bedel Smith, and the late John Coleman, agreed to cooperate. (Very reliable information from a former CIA member now reveals that the CIA financed Dr. Retinger's efforts to convince Prince Bernhard to form this group that was later to be called the Bilderbergs. This is confirmed by the fact that General Walter Bedel Smith was the CIA director from 1950 to 1953, so, is it surprising that he would agree to join this group?)
The first meeting that brought Americans and Europeans together took place under the chairmanship of Prince Bernhard at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. Ever since, the meetings have been called Bilderberg meetings.
From the outset, it was the intentions of the Bilderberg founders, and participants that no strict rules of procedure govern the meetings. Every effort was made to create a relaxed, informal atmosphere conducive to free, and frank discussions.
Bilderberg is in no sense a policy-making body. No conclusions are reached. There is no voting, and no resolutions are passed.
The meetings are off-the-record. Only the participants themselves may attend the meetings.
It was obvious from the first that the success of the meetings would depend primarily on the level of the participants. Leading figures from many fields - industry, labor, education, government, etc. - are invited, who, through their special knowledge or experience, can help to further Bilderberg objectives. Representatives of governments attend in a personal, and not an official capacity. An attempt is made to include participants representing many political parties, and points of view. American participation has included Members of Congress of both parties.
Over the years, Bilderberg participants have come from the NATO countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, and Finland, and have included prominent individuals such as Dean Rusk, Christian A. Herter, Maurice Faure, Franz-Josef Strauss, Amitore Fanfani, Panayotis Pipinelis, Reginald Maudling, the late Hugh Gaitskell, Omer Becu, Guy Mollet, the late Michael Ross, Herman Abs, C. L. Sulzberger, Joseph Harsch, and T. M. Terkelsen. Individuals with international responsibilities have also participated, among them being Gen. Alfred Gruenther, Lord Ismay, Eugene Black, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Paul-Henry Spaak, and the late Per Jacobsson. `
Bilderberg meetings are held at irregular intervals, but have taken place once or twice a year since 1954. All the early conferences were held in Europe, but a meeting is now held on this side of the Atlantic every few years to provide a convenient opportunity for American, and Canadian participants to attend."
The Spotlight reports that the Bilderberg meetings are highly secret, and are held at random times each year, and rarely at the same location, for security reasons. The responsibility for security for these meetings is in the hands of the government of the country in which the meetings are held. They must supply military security, secret service, national and local police, and private security personnel to protect the privacy and safety of these very powerful international Elite members who are not required to conform to regulations that private citizens are subject-to, such as customs searches, visa requirements, or public notice of their meetings. When they meet, no "outsiders" are allowed in or near the building. They bring their own cooks, waiters, telephone operators, housekeepers, and bodyguards.
John J. McCloy (former Chairman of the CFR, and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank) used his position as coordinator of information for the US government to build the framework of what was to become the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), created in 1941-1942 era, headed by Bill Donovan. During 1947, the OSS was rolled into a new group called the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by the 1947 National Security Act, which made the activities of the CIA immune from all civil, and criminal laws. [Immunity similar to that of the Knights Templar, ed.]
In 1950 General Walter Bedel Smith became Director of the CIA. The CIA helped organize, and sponsored the formation, and operation of the Bilderberg Conferences. There is little doubt that the CIA sponsored the formation of the Bilderbergs, and continue to do so, to this day.
It is indeed intriguing when a prestigious collection of internationally powerful men lock themselves away for a weekend in some remote town far away from the Press to talk about world problems.
Since the late 1950s, the Bilberberg Group has been the subject of a variety of conspiracy theories. For the most part, conspiracy theories emanate from political extremist organisations, Right and Left. The 'Radical Right' view Bilderberg as an integral part of the 'international Zionist-communist conspiracy'. At the other end of the political spectrum, the radical Left perceive Bilderberg to be a branch of the 'Rockefeller-Rothschild grand design to rule the world'. For many it is less frightening to believe in hostile conspirators than it is to face the fact that no one is in control. And after all, isn't conspiracy the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means?
Conspiracy or not, the Bilderberg Group is a fascinating example of behind-the-scenes 'invisible' influence-peddling in action.
Bilderbergers represent the elite and wealthy establishment of every Western nation. They include bankers, industrialists, politicians and leaders of giant multinational corporations. Their annual meetings, which take place at a different location each year, go unannounced, their debates unreported, their decisions unknown.
The group certainly fits C. Wright Mills's definition of a Power Elite: 'A group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes.'
I began my investigation of Bilderberg while in Washington, D.C. in the autumn of 1975. I had read bits and pieces on Bilderberg in right-wing literature and so I went directly to its source, the Liberty Lobby, an ultra-conservative political pressure group located a stone's throw from Capitol Hill. There I interviewed one E. Stanley Rittenhouse, Liberty Lobby's legislative aide. Rittenhouse solemnly explained the existence of a Jewish-communist conspiracy to rule the world by way of a 'New World Order', whose eventual goal is one world government. To prove this point Rittenhouse incessantly recited passages from his handy pocket Bible and explained the evolution of this great conspiracy.
It all goes back to the Illuminati, a secret society/fraternity formed in Bavaria in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, based on the philosophical ideals of Plato. John Ruskin, 'a secret disciple of the Illuminati' and a professor of art and philosophy at Oxford University in the 1870s, revived these ideals in his teachings.
The late Dr. Carroll Quigley, a distinguished professor at Georgetown University for many years, wrote in Tragedy and Hope that 'Ruskin spoke to the Oxford undergraduates as members of the privileged ruling class ... that they were possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, rule of law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition could not be saved, and indeed did not deserve to be saved, unless it could be extended to the lower classes in England and to the non-English masses throughout the world'.
Cecil Rhodes, a student and devoted fan of Ruskin, 'Feverishly exploited the diamond and gold fields of South Africa. With financial support from Lord Rothschild he was able to monopolise the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines.
'In the middle of the 1890s Rhodes had a personal income of a least a million pounds a year which he spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that he was usually overdrawn on his account. These purposes centred on his desire to federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all habitable portions of the world under their control.'
To this end, Rhodes, along with other disciples of Ruskin, formed a secret society in association with a group of Cambridge men who shared the same ideals. This society, which was later to become the original Round Table Group (better known in the 1920s as the 'Cliveden Set') was formed on February 5, 1881.
According to Dr. Quigley, 'This group was able to get access to Rhodes's money after his death in 1902.' Under the trusteeship of Alfred (later Lord) Milner, 'They sought to extend and execute the ideals that Rhodes had obtained from Ruskin.
'As governor-general of South Africa in the period 1897-1905, Milner recruited a group of young men, chiefly from Oxford and from Toynbee Hall, to assist him in organising his administration. Through this influence these men were able to win influential posts in government and international finance and became the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs up to 1939. Under Milner in South Africa, they were known as Milner\s Kindergarten until 1910. In 1909-1903 they organised semi-secret groups, known as Round Table Groups, in the chief British dependencies and in the United States.'
It was at the Majestic Hotel in Paris in 1919 that the Round Table Groups of the United States and Britain emerged out from under a cloak of secrecy and officially became the (American) Council on Foreign Relations and the (British) Royal Institute for International Affairs.
To Mr. Rittenhouse and his breed of religious isolationists at Liberty Lobby, Bilderberg evolved directly from the 'satanic-communist' Illuminati, and the Council on Foreign Relations - Royal Institute of International Affairs relationship.
I phoned Dr. Quigley at his office in Georgetown University's elite School of Foreign Service. A man of impeccable credentials, Quigley used Tragedy and Hope as a text for his courses on Western Civilisation.
Published in 1966, Tragedy and Hope has become a rare book to locate. Quigley apparently had trouble with his publisher over the book's distribution. The publisher claimed demand was poor. When Quigley sought and acquired the necessary demand, the publisher responded by saying that the plates had been destroyed.
In his book, 1310 pages in all, Quigley detailed how the intricate financial and commercial patterns of the West prior to 1914 influenced the development of today's world. It has been suggested that these revelations, especially in coming from a respected historian, did not amuse the higher echelons of big banking; hence a form of censorship resulted.
It is for this reason that Tragedy and Hope, much to Quigley's annoyance, has become the Bible of conspiracy theorists and may be found for sale only through mail order book clubs which specialise in conspiracy literature.
Quigley, in his best Boston accent, dismissed the Radical-Right interpretation as 'garbage'. But he was quick to add, 'To be perfectly blunt, you could find yourself in trouble dealing with this subject.' He explained that his career was a lecturer in the government institution circuit was all but ruined because of the twenty or so pages he had written about the existence of Round Table Groups. I recently studied the late Dr. Quigley's private files on the Round Table Groups at the Georgetown University library. There I discovered great substance to his findings in the form of personal correspondence and notes of interviews and conversations.
Exhausted with right-wing cries of communist conspiracy, I wrote to the embassies in Washington of each one of the countries whose citizens are involved with Bilderberg. I received only three replies. A letter from the Royal Swedish Embassy states: 'Prominent Swedish businessmen in their private capacities are and have been members of the group. Swedish politicians have also - mostly as invited guests as I understand it - participated in meetings with the group. I may add that I am not aware of any official Swedish view on the Bilderberg Group.' The Canadian Embassy wrote: 'To our knowledge, the Canadian Government has no position with regard to this group.'
I telephoned all of the embassies. Out of twenty, the only one which had any information of Bilderberg was that of the Netherlands. The official I spoke with knew very little about the group but he speculated that its purpose was to make this 'a more liveable world'. A diplomat at the Embassy of West Germany exclaimed, 'Bilder What?', and he refused to believe the existence of such a group. This was a familiar response, even from many university professors of politics whom I questioned.
Mark Felt, the former Assistant Director of the FBI, had never heard of Bilderberg. Neither had Michael Moffitt of the Institute for Policy Studies and co-author of Global Reach.
After spotting his Name on a poster advertising a seminar on the power elite, I phoned Dr. Peter David Beter, a former Counsel to the Import-Export Bank. Beter contends that Bilderberg Conferences are nothing more than social occasions where prostitutes and large amounts of alcohol are enjoyed. But these days, Dr. Beter's full-time profession consists of peddling a monthly 'Audio Letter' to a very gullible public. Beter was last heard by this author proclaiming that the Russians have secretly implanted nuclear missiles in the Mississippi River.
I wrote to President Gerald Ford at the White House to enquire about Bilderberg when I heard of his one-time involvement. His 'Director of Correspondence' replied and stated: 'The Conference does not intend that its program be secret, although in the interest of a free and open discussion, no records are kept of the meetings.' (I later learned that records are indeed kept of the meetings, although they are marked 'Strictly Confidential'.)
I wrote to David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, to enquire about Bilderberg. An assistant wrote back and he suggested I write to 'Mr. Charles Muller, a Vice President at Muden and Company, the organisation which assists with the administration of American Friends of Bilderberg, Incorporated'
I wrote to Mr. Muller and was sent the following printed message: 'In the early 1950s a number of people in both sides of the Atlantic sought a means of bringing together leading citizens both in and out of government, for informal discussions of problems facing the Western world. Such meetings, they felt, would create a better understanding of the forces and trends affecting Western nations.
'The first meeting that brought Americans and Europeans together took place under the chairmanship of H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, from 29th May to 31st May, 1954. Ever since, the meetings have been called Bilderberg Meetings.
'Each year since its inception, Prince Bernhard has been the Bilderberg chairman. There are no members' of Bilderberg. Each year an invitation list is compiled by Prince Bernhard in consultation with an informal international steering committee; individuals are chosen in the light of their knowledge and standing. To ensure full discussion, an attempt is made to include participants representing many political and economic points of view. Of the 80 to 100 participants, approximately one-third are from government and politics, the others are from many fields - finance, industry, labour, education and journalism. They attend in a personal and not in an official capacity. From the beginning participants have come from North America and Western Europe, and from various international organisations. The official languages are English and French.
'The meetings take place in a different county each year. Since 1957, they have been held in many Western European countries and in North America as well.
'The discussion at each meeting is centred upon topics of current concern in the broad fields of foreign policy, world economy, and other contemporary issues. Basic groundwork for the symposium is laid by means of working papers and general discussion follows. In order to assure freedom of speech and opinion, the gatherings are closed and off the record. No resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued during or after the meetings.
'In short, Bilderberg is a high-ranking and flexibly international forum in which opposing viewpoints can be brought closer together and mutual understanding furthered.'
I wrote to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and received a reply from the Bureau of European Affairs at the State Department: 'In the early 1950s a number of people on both sides of the Atlantic sought a means of bringing together leading citizens ' And so on.
I went to see Charles Muller at his Murden and Company office in New York City. He appeared to know little about Bilderberg and merely repeated information available on the printed message. It is claimed that' Government official attend in a personal and not an official capacity'. Mr. Muller was surprised to learn from me that the State Department acknowledged in a letter to Liberty Lobby that department officials Helmut Sonnenfeldt and Winston Lord attended a Bilderberg Conference at government expense in their official capacities.
I tried to obtain interviews with both Sonnenfeldt and Lord. Their secretaries channelled me through to many different offices. Finally, Francis Seidner, a public affairs advisor, advised me to mind my own business.
Back in London and armed with a list of Bilderberg participants (supplied by Liberty Lobby), I sought out and conducted an interview with Lord Roll, chairman of the S.G. Warburg Bank. Roll gave little away and he stated outright that records of Bilderberg Conferences do not exist. (Little did he realise that I had one in my briefcase!)
I wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and they replied: 'Thank you for your letter enquiring about the Bilderberg Group. Unfortunately, we can find no trace of the Bilderberg Group in any of our reference works on international organisations.' (Much later, I learned that the Foreign Office has on occasion paid the way for British members to attend Bilderberg Conferences.)
A letter to one-time member Sir Paul Chambers brought this response: 'I am under obligation not to disclose anything about the Bilderberg Group to anybody who is not a member of that Group, I am very sorry that I cannot help, but I am clearly powerless to do so and it would be wrong in the circumstances to say anything to you about Bilderberg.' Sir Paul suggested I write to the Bilderberg secretariat at an address in the Hague. I did so and was again sent a copy of the standard printed message.
I had eagerly looked forward to the next Bilderberg Conference, which in 1976 was to be held in Hot Springs, Virginia. For the first time since 1954, the meeting was cancelled. The international steering committee felt it inappropriate to conduct a conference that year because permanent chairman Prince Bernhard was under such heavy public scrutiny after having been publicly disgraced for taking a bribe from the Lockheed Aircraft Company.
So my first Bilderberg Conference took place a year later, in April 1977, at the serene Devon resort of Torquay.
It is the Bilderberg custom to book a whole hotel for the weekend conference. The five-star Imperial Hotel was no exception and it, too, was emptied to accommodate over 100 Bilberberg participants. Even the Imperials permanent guests were told to find lodging elsewhere for the weekend.
I managed a booking at the Imperial for three nights before the Bilderbergers moved in. On Thursday, two days before the conference was due to begin, heavy lorries and workmen unloaded large wooden file cabinets and sealed crates. I was not allowed access to the conference hall, despite assurances from a Bilderberg secretary that 'We have nothing to hide'.
At 2 am Friday morning with the night club finally closed and the Imperial asleep, I tiptoed down five flights of stairs from my room to the conference hall. To my surprise, the doors were unlocked and unguarded. I slipped into the darkened hall and inspected the locked file cabinets, glass translation booth and electronic equipment for tape-recording and translation. Having already consumed a half-dozen whiskies, I could not repulse an urge to purloin a mahogany and brass-plated Bilderberg gavel [1. A small hammer used by a chairman, auctioneer etc.,to call for order or attention. 2. A hammer used by masons to trim rough edges off stones (ed.)]. It now sits atop my desk, a trophy of my research.
Like all others, I was thrown out of the hotel on the Friday to make way for American Secret Servicemen and Special Branch bodyguards. The Bilderbergers arrived later, mostly by way of a quiet entry through Exeter Airport 10 miles form Torquay. They held their hush-hush meetings and then, just as quietly, disappeared back to their respective banks, multinational corporations and government jobs, perhaps a little more the wiser than when they arrived.
Since that time, I have gradually been able to piece the Bilderberg puzzle into shape................
Why not ask your library to order this book so other people in your area can read it.
[Talking about contradictions in the post-war Labour party]
Before long a benign providence developed another mechanism for assisting impecunious European socialists to learn something of the outside world - the international conference. Konigswinter performed this function for Germany. The Council of Europe covered Western Europe as a whole. The NATO Parliamentarians Conference brought politicians from Europe, the United States, and Canada together once a year. Before long there was also an annual meeting in Bermuda of British MP's and members of Congress. Then the great American foundations of Ford and Rockefeller took a hand. There was a proliferation of cultural conferences in all parts of the world, including the Congress for Cultural Freedom, where I could meet people less directly involved in politics such as the poet Stephen Spender, the philosopher Raymond Aron, and the novelist Mary McCarthy. I later discovered that the Congress for Cultural Freedom, like Encounter magazine, was financed by the CIA; both nevertheless made a useful contribution to the quality of Western life at that time.
Of all these meetings, the most valuable to me while I was in opposition were the Bilderberg Conferences - so called after the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnhem, where the first was held in 1954. They were the brain-child of Joseph Retinger, a Pole who had settled in England after the Great War, married the daughter of the socialist intellectual, E.D. Morel, and worked as a secretary to Joseph Conrad, another Polish ex-patriate.
Retinger was a small wizened man, with a pince-nez on a wrinkled brown face. He was crippled by polio. During the war he had been an aide to General Sikorski, and despite his extreme physical disability was parachuted into Poland to make contact with the Home Army. After the war he organised the Congress of the Hague, which launched the European Movement. Convinced of the need for a similar forum to strengthen unity between Europe and North America, he approached Hugh Gaitskell, General Colin Gubbins, who had commanded SOE during the war, and several leading politicians and businessmen who were concerned to strengthen Atlantic cooperation. They asked Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to act as Chairman, because they rightly thought it would be difficult to find a politician whose objectivity would be above suspicion, and who could call Cabinet ministers from any country to order without causing offence.
I was invited to the first meeting and later acted as convener of the British who attended; Reggie Maudling and I were the British members of the Steering Committee. Retinger and his successor, the Dutch Socialist Ernst van der Beughel, who later became Chairman of KLM, were extraordinarily successful in persuading busy men to give up a weekend for private discussions, though they found it more difficult to attract ministers than politicians out of office.
The Bilderberg conferences inevitably aroused jealousy, because they were exclusive, and suspicion, because they were private. In America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism. They were neither. Immense care was taken to invite a fair balance from all political parties, and to include trade unionists as well as businessmen. Though the discussions were more carefully prepared than at many such meetings - I myself wrote a paper for most conferences - their real value, as always, was in the personal contacts made outside the conference hall. Industrialists like Gianni Agnelli and Otto Wolf von Amerongen had to listen to socialists and trade unionists - and vice versa. Experience has taught me that lack of understanding is the main cause of all evil in public affairs - as in private life. Nothing is more likely to produce understanding than the sort of personal contact which involves people not just as officials or representatives, but also as human beings. That is why the Commonwealth Scholarships, which bring students from America and the Commonwealth to Britain, have made a contribution to good relations between the Anglo-Saxon democracies out of all proportion to their cost.
To elicit some sense of logic out of current events - with America firmly ensconced in the role of 'World Policeman' and the entry of NATO on to the Balkan scene - it is necessary to recall some crucial events from 1917 onwards.
The vast wealth amassed by the Vanderbilts, Astors, Morgans and other suchlike at the turn of the century fuelled the extraordinary growth of the American mass-production machine, and the resultant corporations were soon looking abroad with the intention of extending their interests. On the other hand, the Bolshevik's seizure of power in Russia in 1917 created, in effect, a call to wage-earners worldwide for the setting up of a marxist system of social distribution of wealth - the very antithesis of the capitalist system of garnering profit from the wealth created by labour. The corporatists now had little option but to commit themselves to the destruction of the subversive, marxist threat, even though this entailed the dubious - if not impossible - concept of the destruction of an Idea, an Ideal! Above all, they had to avoid this dichotomy being seen as one of ideology per se, the inequity inherent within their capitalist system being too vulnerable to scrutiny. No, the struggle had to be seen by their public as one of 'Good Nation' against 'Evil Nation'; 'White' against 'Red'. This would be made easier both by ownership of the means of communication - the media - and the subornation of political parties of all shades outside of America (as in Italy post-World War 2): the weak left in America itself would be squashed by bâton and gun.
Such was the ideological impasse that lay at the root of all subsequent events, and it is therefore essential to look more closely at the role of corporate America, the key stall-holder in the world market, and the group that would stand to lose the most in the case of failure. For them, political control was now important: politicians could not be entrusted with the task of avoiding, repudiating the temptations of this new ideology. Control was accomplished in two ways:
By direct secondment of top company executives to high government posts, thus skirting the democratic process. An example of this was the fact that in the first two years of Truman's presidency, of the 125 principal appointments made: 56 were corporate lawyers, industrialists and bankers (one of whom James Forrestal of Dillon, Read & Co., was probably the earliest and most vigorous promoter of what was soon to be known as the 'Cold War'); and 31 were high ranking military officers. And by the formation of the influential 'advisory' groups. A survey of these reveals that, contrary to the popular view of America as the epitome of a pluralistic, competitive society of 'rugged individuals', its corporations display a very high degree of cohesion of purpose, and this cohesion is exemplified by their manifest urge to form cabbalistic groups, many of a pseudo-social character. This is a phenomenon that should come as no surprise to anyone who has attended an American university, with its fraternity ethos which invariably leads to the masonic lodge on graduation. Indeed, when it is recalled that the first president, Washington, and nine of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were known freemasons, and that subsequent rituals used for both Washington's inauguration and the laying of the Capitol's cornerstone were masonic - then it would seem that this phenomenon has certain traditional roots.
The result is such groups as:
The Business Council: a government advisory body holding immense political clout since 1936, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) commissioned it to draw up his Social Security Act, thus helping to diffuse a potentially revolutionary situation. (It is interesting to note that from FDR onwards the only time that the Business Council withdrew from its advisory status was in the latter part of JFK's presidency, after its confrontation with him in 1962).
The Bohemian Club, with its prestigious membership and its 127-lodge Grove Camp north of San Francisco on the Russia river - where, for instance, the atom-bomb Manhattan Project was conceived in 1942 at the prompting of physicist Professor Ernest Lawrence.
The Euro-American Bilderberg Group, formed in 1954 to serve as a forum for lobbying at the highest political level in order to ensure that consensual policies were adopted by the West in general, and signatories to the NATO Alliance in particular. Implicit within the structure of this group, with its publicised claim to having no formal organisation; no 'membership' as such; no charter, and no elected officers is its unaccountable, autocratic nature. However, the very fact that it has a chairman (currently Lord Carrington), a steering committee, and annual conferences surely means that - contrary to the claims above - it has a formal organisation. All doors to the seats of power are open to the Bilderberg.
The inevitable interlocking of membership among such groups resulted in the creation of an intricate web of influence (The Bohemian Club, with tongue in cheek, cautions its members - and equally influential guests - on entry to the Grove: "Spiders Weave Not Here!" - as if a spider could exist without weaving its web!). The following table covering nine of such clubs/groups illustrates concisely the complexity and scale of the web, as it existed in the early 1970s. (Two points: the Bilderberg is not included because of its structural ambiguity noted above, and it must be kept in mind that each figure represents a top-ranking executive in the American military/industrial/banking complex):
CFR=Council for Foreign Relations
CED=Council for Economic Development
Two notorious, well-documented examples of the use to which this influence was put are:
In Iran, mid-'53, the Americans deposed Mossadegh, President of Iran who had nationalised the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) (latterly BP) in 1951, and installed the Shah by means of a CIA operation codenamed 'AJAX'. Legal counsel for the AIOC had for years been the distinguished New York Corporate law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, the senior partners of which were the Dulles brothers (another partner was Arthur Dean, who was later a co-chairman in the Bilderberg for some years). At the time of the coup, John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State; Allen Dulles was CIA Director. It is worth adding here that the AIOC was financed from its early years by the Industrial Bank of Iran, an offshoot of the German Schroeder banking house (about which, more later).
In Guatemala, June '54, a CIA-sponsored coup d'état removed the reformist, constitutionally elected government of Jacovo Arbenz Guzman (a land-owning, military officer), and replaced it by a military dictatorship. Arbenz had, in 1953, expropriated, as part of his much-needed agrarian reform, large, uncultivated tracts of land belonging to the American United Fruit Company (UFC), whose earlier predatory incursion into Central America had caused the area to be known as 'the Banana republica'. For years, the counsel for the UFC had been Sullivan & Cromwell, and at the time of the coup the Dulles still held the posts they had held in 1953. Indeed, John Foster Dulles was also a large stockholder in the UFC. This coup, incidentally, was a blatant violation of Article 15 of the, US-inspired, Organisation of American States (OAS) which specifically forbade any interference - political or military - by one state in the affairs of any other state.
These examples of corporate power-wielding reveal the lack of any democratic accountability, as well as a disregard of national frontiers, this latter aspect due largely to the nowmultinational nature of the corporations. There were even a number of cases in the 20's and 40's when such activities militated against the national interest of their own country - to the benefit of Germany in the instances that follow.
The 1920's had been a particularly crucial period in Germany because of the extraordinarily rapid rise to power of the Nazis: what had been a rag-tag of street dissidents had, within a decade, become a well-uniformed, well-organised, and obviously well-financed organisation. Above all, it projected a very marked anti-Bolshevik bias. This attracted Corporate America, and contacts were soon made. International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) and Sullivan & Cromwell were among the more high profile firms to do so. In the case of both firms, the German contact used was Dr Gerhardt Alois Wetrick, Hitler's financial agent - and through him deals were made with Baron Kurt von Schroeder of the Schroeder banking house (see AIOC above). This bank was a channel for funds for the Nazi Party in general, and the Gestapo in particular (it was in von Schroeder's villa in Köln on the 7th January 1933 that Hitler and Franz von Papen had met to plan details for their subsequent seizure of power, and von Schroeder was later made SS Gruppenfuehrer).
In ITT's case, in return for directorships for both Westrick and von Schroeder in ITT, the latter acquired a number of German firms, the most intriguing of which was a 28% share in the Focke-Wulf aircraft company, whose aircraft saw much service in the ensuing World War 2 much to the discomfiture of Allied servicemen and civilians. Moreover, in 1967, ITT were paid $25 million in compensation by the American government for war damages to its factories in Germany!
For its part, Sullivan & Cromwell acquired as clients:
I.G. Farben, the German chemical conglomerate which, in 1937, developed the deadly nerve gas, Tabun.
The well-known Swedish ball-bearing manufacturer, SKF, which supplied 60% of its production to Germany - primarily for its armaments.
The Schroeder banking house itself, Allen Dulles becoming a director at its New York offshoot - a post he held until 1944. Inasmuch as it exposes one of the filaments of the 'Corporate Web', it is pertinent to note here that the man who initially approached Sullivan & Cromwell on behalf of Schroeder was the latter's vice-president, John L. Simpson, the chief confidant of Steve Bechtel Sr. (of Bechtel Corporation) who was a member of the most influential 'camp' in the Bohemian Grove, Mandalay Camp (Bechtel was later to supply the US government with such figures as John McCone, George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger).
Implicit in the political unaccountability of the American Corporate oligarchy is its public domain - as above - must mean that there are many more of like import and gravity not in the public domain, and any concerned curiosity about such unpublicised activities, or hidden agenda, is therefore equally justified.
The current Balkan crisis, and America's role in it, offers an opportunity to indulge this curiosity. However, any examination of a subject as complex as the Balkans must necessarily be preceded by a brief historical review of the region: the Roman/Orthodox split in the Christian church and the subsequent five centuries of Muslim Ottoman rule ensured that the Yugoslavia that was to be formed in 1918 would be a land simmering with religious discord - a situation not eased by the earlier incursions of the Habsburgs in the north and the Bulgars in the east. The setting up of the Catholic State of Croatia under the fascist Ustase in the wake of the German massacres of Orthodox Serbs - and jews, muslims and gypsies on a lesser scale. Another area of discord during the war was the split between the ultra-Serbian royalist Chetniks under Mihailovich and the more ethnically-mixed communist/republican Partisans under Tito, a Coat (it is strange that this historical aspect has not been taken into account by any publicised analysis of the current crisis: after all, the 'Bosnian Serbs' are self-proclaimed Chetniks, a minority group among Serbs as a whole, and to imply that they - the Chetniks - reflect the aspirations of all Serbs is therefore misleading, and smacks of duplicity).
At this point it is necessary to recall that at the end of World War 2, America emerged with three-quarters of the world's invested capital and two-thirds of the world's industrial capacity - Russia with its infrastructure decimated. The distribution of American aid that followed was significant in the choice of countries so aided, and the relative amounts involved. Russia was denied aid, and the reason given by the US for this denial (which, incidentally, circumvented UN agreements) was that, at the critical Moscow Conference which started on the 10th March 1947, the Russians had spurned America's gestures of compromise - conveniently disregarding the fact that on the 12th March 1947 (just two days into the conference) Truman had dropped his bombshell of a speech to Congress - his 'Doctrine', which was, in effect, an ultimatum to Stalin: you're either with us - or against us! The Marshall Plan was announced three months later. Between 1946 and 1961 the US distributed $8.7 billion of economic aid and $7.9 billion of military aid to the five dictatorships of Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam and Formosa (Taiwan). This was more aid than Europe - with a greater population - received over the same period. Furthermore, of the economic aid received by Europe, fascist Spain received $1 billion ($2.5 billion for her Indo-Chinese war); and Spain, $500 million.
George Kennan, who was head of the US State Department Planning Staff in the late '40s (and protégé of James Forrestal), supplied the official rationale that lay behind the above facts concisely in articles he wrote at the time under the pseudonym of 'Mr. X'. He stated "The United States has it in its power to increase enormously the strains under which Soviet policy must operate - and to promote tendencies which eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power".
These irreconcilable ideological differences between Russia on the one hand, and Britain and America on the other, meant that their wartime alliance had been an alliance of convenience, of pragmatism (e.g. contrary to America's assurance to Russia in May '42 that a 'second front' would be opened up later that year, this, in fact, did not occur until June '44 - when it became clear to the Western Allies that the Russians were advancing inexorably westwards). Thus, at war's end in 1945, the Western Allies, for their part, immediately reverted to their pre-war anticommunist strategy. This entitled the recruitment of key Nazis - such as the chief of Intelligence on the Eastern Front, General Reinhard Gehlen (who, with the assistance of the CIA, formed the West German Intelligence agency, the BND), and the channeling of many others - such as wanted war criminals like Eichmann, Barbie, Mengele et al - to sanctuary in the West (primarily South America). This channel ran through Italy, and understandably, due to its geographic proximity and its close relationship with the Vatican, many of the escapees were Croatian Ustase (including the Poglavnik, Croatian Fuehrer, Ante Pavelic, a wanted war criminal). This escape channel was a Vatican-controlled operation run by a Croatian priest, Fr. Kronoslav Draganovich, Secretary of the Confraternity of San Girolamo in Rome, member of Interarium, and a man, moreover, who co-operated with Reinhard Gehlen, whose brother was a secretary to the SMOM (see below) in Rome. American intelligence (OSS at that time), under the command of Allen Dulles in Bern, co-operated with this operation, naming it RATLINES after their own escape route for downed Air Force crews in Europe in the war. And with Tito now in power, over the next few years bands of Krizari (Crusaders) were recruited by WEstern Intelligence from the Ustase who had fled into Austria and Italy - and sent into Yugoslavia on destabilising missions.
A significant post-war event that was to play a crucial role in both the 'Cold War' and Yugoslavia's future was the Greek civil war. The popular communist-led party, EAM - with its military wing, ELAS - would have assumed power in Greece in 1944 had not the British intervened militarily with two divisions, as a result of the (then) secret deal Churchill had made with Stalin in October '44: in effect, allowing the British a free hand in Greece in return for Russia having a freehand in Bulgaria and Romania. The subsequent guerrilla war waged by ELAS, with Tito's assistance, was held up as the 'bête noire' by Truman in his 'Doctrine Speech' in '47, calling for the West to rally to his crusade against the "un-American, communist way of life". In the following year, 1948, two crucial events occurred in Yugoslavia - now understandably in a parlous economic state: 1) Tito broke off relations with Stalin, and 2) America loaned Yugoslavia $1 billion. Disregarding any question of a causal line here (inasmuch as the chronology of the two events is not to hand), the consequences were that Tito stopped assisting the Greek rebellion - which collapsed as a result - and embarked on a debt-ridden course which eventually left to the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation. And America had now replaced Britain as the broker in the region.
Furthermore, any historical review of the region would be inadequate if it did not include the role that religion in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in particular, has played in it - but in view of the schism that exists in the Church between the oligarchic 'Integralists' and the liberal 'Base Communities', it should be noted here that any reference/s to 'the church' is/are directed towards the former: the autocrats in the Vatican. The involvement of the church in the region was inevitable, given its geographical juxtaposition tom and historical association with Slovenia and Croatia - long regarded by the Church as a bastion against both the Orthodox Serbs (since Pope John 10th's crowning of Tomislav as King of Croatia in 925 AD) and later, the Muslim Ottomans.
One significant aspect of the Vatican/Yugoslav relationship during the early post-war period was that, whereas the polish government (a Russian satellite) had intervened far more in the internal affairs of the church than had Yugoslavia (which had broken off relations with Russia) the Vatican had adopted a far more intransigent attitude towards the latter (as exemplified by their opposition to Tito's agrarian reform, their stance over the Istria confrontation, and their ban on priests joining the long-established Priests' Associations) than towards the former. This could only have been a case of political opportunism aimed at Tito's comparative weakness. It was certainly not a case of religious principle.
Given their common, fervent anti-communist bias, it was also inevitable that there would be cooperation between Corporate America and the Vatican (as already referred to). Perhaps the most active Catholic group which so co-operated was the Venerable Sovereign Military & Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta, better known s the Knights of Malta (SMOM for short), an Order which, like the Vatican itself, is based in Rome and enjoys sovereign status, issuing its own passports and stamps. One of the SMOM's functions in the RATLINES operation was, in fact, the supplying of false passports to the Nazis on their way to sanctuary. Other examples of this co-operation in the post-war period were the setting up of the anti-communist propaganda radio station, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, joint ventures of the CIA (for funding) and SMOM members J. Peter Grace (W. R. Grace Corp.) and frank Shakespeare (CBS-TV, RIO and US Information Agency) - among others. Although membership of the Order was opened to Americans only in 1927, it is a measure of that country's influential standing that by the 1940s the American Cardinal Spellman held the post of 'Grand Protector' within the Order, whereas King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Wilhelmina of Holland were mere 'protectors' within their respective countries! To name but a few of its members, past and present, is to reveal its élitism and power. Juan Péron, CIA directors John McCone and William Casey, King Juan Carlos, ex-NATO Commander and ex-Secretary of State Alexander Haig, Joseph Kennedy - and Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, who negotiated the Hitler/Vatican Concordat of 1933.
This Concordat was an agreement that meant, in effect, that a government with an ostensibly strong anti-religious bias had taken the seemingly extraordinary step of imposing a church tithe on its populace! To understand this apparent paradox it is necessary to recall the ties that bound Germany to Rome for some eight centuries (926-1806) under the aegis of the Holy Roman Empire, with its succession of German kings. The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn here is that these ties were still alive in 1933, and the setting up of the puppet states of Slovenia and Croatia in 1941 are thus comprehensible. That these ties still exist today is attested to by the facts that 1) the Concordat is still in effect, and 2) since World War 2 the German political scene has been dominated by Christian Democratic (Catholic) parties. Indeed there can be no other rational explanation for Germany's extraordinary action on the 15th January 1992 when, contrary to the advice and warnings given them by the UN, EEC and Bosnia itself (Itzebegovic had even gone to Bonn in a vain attempt to dissuade them from taking this step) they recognised the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, thereby sanctioning the violent outbursts of nationalism that had occurred as a result of the earlier Declarations of Independence by those two autonomous members of the Yugoslav Federation. It was inevitable that the German action would lead to the Bosnian débacle - and it is difficult to believe that Germany was not aware of this.
The collapse of the communist states in the East caused many in the West to query the further need for NATO. It is now evident that this query was based on two grave misconceptions: 1) the NATO had been set up solely to resist Soviet expansion, and 2) that the collapse of the latter had meant the end of the marxist ideal. Had this been so, logic would have decreed immediate redundancy for NATO! By the very nature of its conception in April 1949, NATO operates under American patronage and hegemony. Patronage, as attested to under its Article 3 whereby $25 billion of military aid was given to its partners by the US in the first twenty years only of its existence hegemony, as attested to by a glance at NATO's command structure which reveals that, of its three 'commands' -SAFEUR or SHAPE (covering Europe), SACLANT (the Atlantic) and CINCHAN (the Channel) - the first two named, the crucial areas, can be under only American command (Eisenhower, Haig, etc).
NATO's true role since its formation has been to act as a counter-revolutionary, counter-reformist arm of the Corporate West. This was clarified by no less a person than George Kennan (once again) when he stated that, when NATO was formed, the State department considered ".the communist danger in its most threatening form as an internal problem - that is, of western society" - and if anybody should have known it was he. This was a statement, moreover, that conformed precisely - and understandably - to the tenets of corporate America. This now calls for a closer look at NATO's Article 9, which empowered the setting up of subsidiary bodies, such as civilian institutes, military staff and other such. The fact the GLADIO is such a 'subsidiary body' is enough to cause unease. GLADIO (aka GLAIVE, aka ZWAARD) is a secret anti-Left terrorist group set up by the Clandestine Planning Committee of SHAPE in 1959. Recent judicial investigations into political corruption in Italy have unearthed evidence linking GLADIO to post-war terrorist acts in that country (such as the Bologna bombing). One such act - though an abortive one - was the attempted coup d'etat in 1970 led by Prince Valerio Borghese and his neo-fascist protégé Stephano delle Chiaie - a known terrorist. Borghese, a fascist and naval commander in the war, had been sentenced to death for war crimes by the Italian Resistance at war's end, but rescued by James Jesus Angleton, who headed the OSS-controlled American/British Special Counter-Intelligence Team, SCI-Z, then operating in Italy (Angleton later became head of CIA Counter-Intelligence, and throughout his career retained exclusive control over CIA liaison with the Vatican). Borghese, for his part, played a leading role in post-war fascist politics, and was a Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion in the SMOM.
However, GLADIO must be seen in its wider, proper context: namely, the subornation of postwar Italian political parties by the American oligarch in order to ensure that the communist party did not attain power in that county. In March 1948, Secretary of State General George Marshall told the European nations bluntly that ".benefits under ERP (Marshall Plan) will come to an abrupt end in any country that votes communism to power". Concurrently, the CIA played a pivotal, funding role in this subornation, partly with the co-operation of Catholic Action, which was led by Doctor Luigi Gedda who created a network of 18,000 'civic committees' with which to garner votes. He was a member of SMOM. There is little doubt that the $65 million that the CIA alone channeled into the coffers of the Christian Democrats and the Socialists between 1946 and 1972 fuelled the corruption now in the public eye.
Crossing the Adriatic brings us once more to the Balkan crisis. Many aspects of it appear very puzzling to the public. There are many relevant questions not asked, and many such questions not answered. In the light of the secretiveness of the 'web' so far described here, this is hardly surprising - but the questions persist: why was Lord Carrington made a peace-broker, and by whom? And Cyrus Vance? Why did Germany recognise Slovenia and Croatia, and why did the remainder of the West 'about turn' and do the same? Why was Britain prone to so many 'changes of mind' of such a crucial, contrary nature? Is there no rational explanation, no common denominator of logic here?
In the absence of answers, conjecture inevitably takes over: was Carrington chosen because he had been Secretary General of NATO? Or a Bilderberger? Or member of the powerful consultancy/lobbying firm Kissinger Associates?; was Vance chosen because he had been US Secretary of Defense? Or Secretary of State? Or on the board of the armaments manufacturer, General Dynamic? Was the German decision in any was influenced by the fact that the Vatican had already 'recognised' Slovenia and Croatia (indeed the first sovereign body so to do)? Or in any way connected to the fact that two crucial NATO posts - that of Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General of Political Affairs - were held by Germans? And was there a causal link here? As for Britain's behaviour: it can be explained in no other way than as the behaviour of one not in control of one's actions. This gives rise to one more question: who is in control?
NATO's involvement in the Balkans has been one of steady progression from its avowed readiness in June '92 to support peace-keeping under the umbrella of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) formed in 1972, through policing of the 'No-Fly Zone' over Bosnia - to its current function as UN 'hitman'. This encroachment on to the scene reveals that, behind all the well-publicised, misleading posturings of politicians, statesman and 'peace-makers', it - NATO - has ingratiated itself into a key position in the region - with the ultimate authority of military supremacy. Far from being redundant now that the Cold War is over, it is preparing to play a more active, high-profile role in the now-enlarged European theatre. This will be in the form of its new subsidiary body: the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Force - or ARRC for short. This was set up in October '92 as a result of a review undertaken in June '90. It is expected to be fully operational in 1995, and will presumably augment that other rapid reaction force of the US Army, its Central Command - or CENTCOM (of 'Stormin' Norman' fame) - which was formed in 1983 primarily to 'protect' (control) the Mid-East oilfields, replacing Carter's Rapid Deployment Force.
The future seems to grow more ominous daily, in spite of - or more likely - because for that Disneyland vision of 'The New World Order' as seen by such as George Bush and like Corporatists. here in Britain the public has been subjected over the past decade and a half to a PR exercise boosting the benefits of the 'Free Market', an exercise of such intensity and breadth that it - the public - has been rendered comatose, thus allowing the Tory representatives of corporations to side-line the Trade Unions and dismantle all the hard-worn public services. That this had been done in a duplicitous manner is attested to by the fact that businessmen, politicians and media moguls alike indulge in a plethora of double-speak: capitalism becomes 'Free Market'; cheaper labour become either 'a more competitive society' or 'a more flexible market' and so on, ad infinitum. The Corporate Spider weaves its web!
Ratlines, by Mark Aarons and John Loftus, Heinemann, 1991.
Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, Stella Alexander, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
The Temple and The Lodge, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, Jonathan Cape, 1989.
The Bohemian Grove, G William Domhoff, Harper, 1974.
The Fall of Yugoslavia, Misha Glenny, Penguin, 1992.
The Free World Colossus, David Horowitz, Hill and Wang, 1965.
People of God, Penny Lernoux, Viking, 1989.
Friends in High Places, Laton McCartney, Ballantine, 1988.
The Sovereign State, Anthony Sampson, Hodder and Stoughton, 1973.
The Greatest Men's Party On Earth, John Van Der Zee, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974.
Bilderberg: The Cold War Internationale, from congressional record number E9615, 1971.
Yearbook of International Organisations 1991-92, 9th edition, K.G. Sauer.
At a small hotel near Arnhem in the deeply wooded uplands of eastern Holland on May 29, 30, and 31, 1954, a group of eminent statesmen, financiers, and intellectuals from the principal nations of Europe and the United States met together in, perhaps, the most unusual international conference ever held until then.
There was absolutely no publicity. The hotel was ringed by security guards, so that not a single journalist got within a mile of the place. The participants were pledged not to repeat publicly what was said in the discussions. Every person present-Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, leaders of political parties, heads of great banks and industrial companies, and representatives of such international organizations as the European Coal and steel Community, as well as academicians-was magically stripped of his office as he entered the door, and became a simple citizen of his country for the duration of the conference. Thus everybody could and did say what he really thought without fear of international, political, or financial repercussions.
That meeting and the subsequent ones that stemmed from it, which have had a great if indefinite impact on the history of our times, are, perhaps, int this writer's opinion, Prince Bernhard's proudest achievement in the field of Western unity and international amity.
It was not Bernhard's original idea, but had its inception in the brilliant brain of Dr Joseph H. Retinger. Retinger was an extraordinary character who flitted through Europe talking on intimate terms with Prime Ministers, labour leaders, industrial magnates, revolutionaries, and intellectuals-in short, all the non-Communist rulers and would-be rulers of the free nations of Europe.
Kraków, in Austrian Poland, was Retinger's birthplace; his parents were landed gentry. When he went to the Sorbonne in Paris in 1906, at the age of eighteen, this boy talked his way into the heart of that city's literary and artistic life, and was called friend by such as André Gide, Giraudoux, François Mauriac, Maurice Ravel, and the raffish Marquis Boni de Castellane. When he moved on to England, Herbert Asquith, his wife, outspoken Margot, and Lord Balfour took him into their circle, and his most intimate friend was his fellow-Pole, Joseph Conrad.
Retinger had what C. D. Jackson calls "a built-in instinct for intrigue" and a passionate love for Poland. During World War I his machinations for a free Poland made him uniquely unpopular. The Central Powers put a price on his head, the Allies banned him from all their countries, and the United States threw him into jail. These experiences taught him to be a better diplomat.
In World War II Retinger was closely associated with General Sikorsky, head of the Polish Government in Exile, as liaison man with the other exiled Governments. In 1944 General Sir Colin Gubbins of The S.O.E. (the super-secret Special Operations Executive) arranged for him to be parachuted into Poland with several million dollars for the Polish Resistance. At the age of fifty-six Retinger jumped at night into a field in enemy territory, and accomplished his mission. However, his legs became paralysed, probably as a result of the jump, and he had to be spirited out of Poland on a stretcher.
From that time until his death in 1960 Dr Retinger devoted his life to his one impassioned, idealistic purpose of uniting and strengthening the Western world against the danger from the East.
Jackson says, "He was a sort of Eminence grise of Europe, a Talleyrand without portfolio." Certainly he had almost as many adventures as Ian Fleming's famous secret-service operative James Bond.
Retinger was a frail, delicate little man with a deeply seamed face and quizzical eyes behind blue-tinted spectacles. His big jaw was never still, for he talked volcanically. AFter the parachute jump he always walked with a cane. C.D. jackson, who often clashed with him, said Retinger was "a very difficult, very opinionated man who would not take no for an answer and often achieved his purpose by very devious means. But nevertheless he was fearless and determined, a tremendously gallant guy."
Though people persist in calling Retinger an eighteenth-century man functioning in the twentieth century, he was not that at all. He cam,e straight out of the Renaissance. Instead of the sceptical, précieuse attitude typical of the eighteenth century, his Jesuitical conviction that the end justified the means, and a Borgian aptitude for intrigue; but the ends he sought were never selfish. They were good.
Though his name is virtually unknown except to the initiates, he made more history in his secret way than many a man who moved to the sound of trumpets and the howl of motor-cycle sirens. According to the official publication of the European Centre of Culture, "Retinger was the key figure in most of the great European union. The League of European Economic Cooperation (from which evolved the Common Market), the European Movement, and . the European Centre of Culture would not have seen the light without him. The Congress of Europe at The Hague was his doing, and the Council of Europe grew out of that."
Being above all a realist, Retinger understood that even a united Europe could not stand by itself without America. In 1952 he became deeply concerned about the rising tide of antAmericanism in practically every country of Western Europe. It was not confined to Communist-in?influenced or left-wing circles, but was equally prevalent among conservatives and liberals. The United States was disliked, feared, and sneered at with a unanimity that was remarkable among the peoples of Europe. This feeling threatened the solidarity of the Western world's defences against Communism.
Retinger was not the type of man to sit wringing his hands. He evolved a brilliant plan for coping with this situation, but he needed powerful assistance to put it into effect. So he asked his friend Dr Paul Rijkens to get him an appointment with Prince Bernhard, who has described their meeting:
"It all stated when Retinger came to me and sat here in this room and told me about his worries concerning the rising tide of anti-Americanism in Europe. I was worried about it, too. It seemed illogical in the face of the Marshall Plan, military assistance, NATO, etc., which had done so much for all of us. I suppose it was partly the natural human instinct to bite the hand that feeds you, and partly real grievances. I said to him, 'Yes, you're quite right. It's very bad.' Retinger said, 'Well, would you like to do something about it?' And I said, 'Of course.'"
Sitting on the edge of an easy chair in Bernhard's trophy-filled study, with his cane between his spindly legs, his inevitable cigarette burning furiously, and his eyes shooting sparks behind his blue-tinted spectacles, Retinger outlined his plan for bringing about better understanding between the touchy, suspicious Europeans and Americans. It consisted of two parts. The first was to get the leaders of opinion in the most important European countries to make an appraisal of where the Americans were wrong, apart from being rich,m powerful, generous, and rather stupid, and what they could do to put things right.
The second was to present this frank critique to leaders of American opinion and give them an opportunity to answer the indictment at a completely private meeting of top-level people from both continents.
Bernhard was all for it, but an unusual instinct for caution made him say, "It sounds wonderful, but I'd like another opinion. Let's find out what van Zeeland thinks about it." (Van Zeeland was Prime Minister of Belgium.)
Van Zeeland thought something should be done, and quickly. Reinforced by his approval, Bernhard went to work with Retinger reckoned, could supply the answers. The idea was to get two people from each country who would give the conservative and liberal slant. Then Bernhard, using his personal prestige and royal leverage, induced, with the help of Retinger, who knew practically all of them, most of those selected to co-operate.
It was quite a list. Van Zeeland wrote a paper for Belgium, Hugh Gaitskell and Lord Portal spoke for Great Britain, Prime Minister Alcide de Gasperi for Italy, Foreign Minister Ole Bjørn Kraft of Denmark for Scandinavia; Guy Mollet (former Socialist Prime Minister) and Conservative Prime Minister Pinay for France, and Max Brauer, Otto Wolff von Amerongen, and Dr Müller for West Germany. Prince Bernhard himself handled the complaints of Holland, with the help of leading Dutch politicians and industrialists.
When all the reports came in Bernhard and Retinger found that many people of different countries and different parties gave the same reasons for disliking Americans, although there were, of course, some people with special grouses of their own. Bernhard, Retinger, and Rijkens synthesized the answers into a single report covering the main criticisms. Then Bernhard sent it confidentially to some of his American friends with the proposal that they organize an answer.
The election of 1952 was in full swing in the United States, and political brickbats were flying. Nobody had any time for Prince Bernhard. Averell Harriman said, "I won't touch it. It's dynamite." Eisenhower said, "Great! I'd like to use it in the campaign," to which Bernhard replied, "Good God, NO!"
The matter had to go over until after the election. Then Bernhard went to the United States-and, incidentally, got the bad news from Walter Reed. He saw a number of American politicians, and after several more rebuffs he went to his friend Bedell Smith, who was then head of the C.I.A. Smith said, "Why the hell didn't you come to me in the first place?"
Even then things moved slowly. Smith became Under-Secretary of State for newly elected President Eisenhower, and was engulfed in the business of putting a new administration together. He finally turned the matter over to C. D. Jackson, a special assistant to the President, and things really got going.
Jackson got in touch with John S. Coleman, President of the Burroughs Corporation of Detroit, who was a member of the newly formed Committee for a National Trade Policy under the presidency of Senator Robert Taft's brother, Charles Taft. This committee undertook to draft an American reply, and a number of private citizens. Other famous Americans were invited. Most of the administration officials ducked nervously, so the American delegation was rather weighted towards industry, but it included such eminent Americans as Joseph E. Johnson, of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, Dean Rusk, then head of the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as David Rockefeller and H.J. Heinz II.
All this took time, which is why the first meeting did not take place until May 1954. By then, is spite of Eisenhower's personal popularity, the United States was at an all-time nadir of popularity in Europe. As the Europeans saw it, a soldier was in the White House, even though he was the least militant of military men. The Government was in the hands of the conservative Republican Party for the first time in twenty years. And, worst of all, Senator McCarthy was roaring through the land witch-hunting for Reds. His arrogant stooges had just completed their book-burning tour of American embassies in Europe, and the whole American career image of America, erstwhile land of democracy and freedom, was covered with mud.
Under these circumstances it looked as though there would be a heated session at the Hôtel de Bilderberg. Prince Bernhard, who was chairman, said, "The meeting was most encouraging because people accepted the idea that there would be no publicity, and everybody could speak for himself, irrespective of his position, quite frankly-and fight!"
At the memory Prince Bernhard's eyes lit up, and he said, "It was a beautiful meeting because sparks were flying like crazy between Americans like C. D. Jackson and Britishers like Sir Oliver Franks and Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskell."
Jackson himself described the meeting as follows:
"It was all very new and different. We were tucked away in a forest way back in Holland. There were no reporters. Tight security with guards all over the hotel. IN the opening hours every one was uneasy, nervous, sniffing each other like strange dogs. They were afraid to talk very much.
"Prince Bernhard was everywhere using his charming wiles. People began to thaw. Then they began to fight, which was good. The Prince kept things in hand. When feeling got too tense he was able to relax people with just the right witty crack, or assert his authority. Though he is so charming, he is made of pretty stern stuff. When he was to restore order he does so in such a way that no one can take offence. But there is no fooling. Order is restored."
Naturally the Europeans were continually needling the Americans about McCarthy. Many of them seemed genuinely fearful that the United States was heading for a Fascist dictatorship. Therefore, on the third day, Prince Bernhard announced, "Even though it is not on the agenda, there has been so much talk of McCarthyism that, if there is time, I am going to ask Mr Jackson to tell us the American view on that."
There was time, and Jackson stood up to address the meeting. He is a big man, well over six feet tall, fourteen stone of muscular weight with a big domed head and a bold, jutting profile; impressive by his stature and his slow, judicial way of speech. Almost in the manner of a university professor, Jackson told his audience a few facts of political life in the United States. He pointed out that in the American system of government and politics, "We are certain to get this kind of supercharged, emotional freak from time to time." Then he reached back into history for the same sort of demagogue, telling them of the spectacular but short-lived careers of Father Coughlin and Huey Long.
He said that he knew it was hard of Europeans to understand how a Senator of the President's own party could say things on the floor of the Senate completely at variance with the Governments's policy. But, he pointed out, there was no way to stop a United States Senator when he went on a rampage. Party discipline was non-existent in that case. Therefore, Jackson said, the Europeans were right to be interested in this peculiar phenomenon of Senator McCarthy, but wrong to be fearful that he was the first step towards Fascism.
Finally Jackson made a rash prediction: "Whether McCarthy dies by an assassin's bullet or is eliminated in the normal American way of getting rid of boils on the body politic, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meeting he will be gone from the American scene."
The fact that within a comparatively short time McCarthy was rebuked by the Senate and lost virtually all his prestige and power made the Europeans feel that they had heard the truth about America. George McGhee of the United States Department of State says, "The really bad misunderstandings between Europeans and Americans were dissipated at the first Bilderberg. Since then there has never been such a sharp division between us and Europe."
The first Bilderberg Conference was such a success in promoting real understanding across the Atlantic that its sponsors decided to continue the meetings. A permanent Steering Committee was set up to plan the agenda for future meetings and decide whom to invite according to the subjects to be discussed. Dr Retinger became permanent secretary, until he died and was succeeded by Ernst van der Beugel, who, incidentally, said to the writer, "I am allergic to international groups. I attended my first Bilderberg meeting with great reserve, but I was impressed by it and remained impressed."
Joseph E. Johnson became the first Secretary on the American side. Otherwise the organization was kept as loose as possible to allow maximum flexibility. To insure this the Steering Committee tries to have a turnover of at least twenty percent. of new faces at each meeting. This was made clear at the outset, so that people who are not asked back every time would not consider it an affront.
Combined with this is the unwritten rule that anybody who has ever been to a Bilderberg Conference should be able to feel that he can, in a private capacity, call on any former member he has met. To this end a list of names and addresses is maintained to which all participants have access. This makes possible an expanding continuation of association for people who might not otherwise have met.
Three days at a Bilderberg Conference are not only a stimulating but also an extremely exhausting experience, especially for Bernhard and the other members of the Steering Committee. H. J. Heinz II described a typical day: "We sit from nine o'clock in the table. Right after lunch we go at it again until seven o'clock. Fifteen minutes to wash up, and then an executive session of the Steering Committee. That lasts an hour, and then we have dinner. After that we talk some more, informally. It's a fifteen-hour day, at least!"
Another member of the group said, "We meet in such beautiful places, but we never have time to look at the scenery."
Since 1954, meetings of the Bilderberg group have been held once a year, sometimes twice. The Steering Committee meets more frequently. The regular sessions are attended by from fifty to eighty people. Each meeting is held in a different country, but follows the same pattern. An entire hotel is taken over and closely guarded. The members all live together, eat and drink together, for three days. Wives are not invited. Dr Rijkens says, "More important things are done and better understandings are often arrived at in private conversations at lunch or dinner than in the regular sessions. Through the years we have achieved a sort of brotherhood of friendship and trust."
The expenses or each meeting are borne by private subscription in the host country, and Prince Bernhard always presides-though not by his own choice. At the very first meeting he tried rotating the chairmanship, putting van Zeeland in the second day and Mr Coleman the third. It did not work. The other Europeans thought that van Zeeland was too political and the American Democrats felt that Coleman was too old-guard Republican. They all begged him to become permanent chairman. Because he was royal and therefore apolitical, and, furthermore, came from a small nation with no large axes to grind, he was, in fact, the logical choice. In addition every one agreed that he handled the meetings extremely well. Mr Heinz says, "If Prince Bernhard had not existed Retinger would have had to invent him."
There was also the fact that his royalty gave him considerable leverage in inducing these very eminent men to give up their pressing affairs to attend the meetings. This rather worried Bernhard, who once said to van der Beugel, "Is it just snob-appeal that brings them?"
Van der Beugel answered forthrightly, "If you can transfer snobbism into something fine and useful that's good. The authority with which you can ask people to attend meetings is important. On the other hand, you don't get eighty outstanding people to drop everything and go off to a foreign country just for snobbism. The way you manage the thing and the importance of the enterprise are what draws them."
Meanwhile Retinger brought in many men of the non-Communist but radical left who might not have responded to an invitation from Prince Bernhard. However, even these would probably not have consented to attend a conference with the men of the conservative right had they not been reassured by having in the chair a completely non-political figure. As Dr Rijkens said "No one but Bernhard could have induced such old antagonists as Guy Mollet and Antoine Pinay to sit at the same table."
Prince Bernhard in his methodical way prepares very carefully for each meeting by an intensive study of all the subjects on the agenda. Then he takes copious notes at the meetings, and at the end of each session tries to sum up what has been said and perhaps add a few impartial words of his own to clear the air. In spite of his preliminary work, Prince Bernhard confesses, "I always go to the meetings with a feeling of great nervousness. There are so many explosive possibilities. But it is always tremendously stimulating and enormously interesting-in fact, great fun.
"One thing that worries me beforehand is suppose some key person does not show up and the discussions are a flop? We have had very little trouble with that."
One meeting Bernhard was particularly nervous about was the one at St Simons Island, Georgia. United States Senator J. William Fulbright, Senator Wiley and several American congressmen were coming for the first time. The rule of the meetings is that each man is allowed five minutes to talk, and at the end of this time the Prince is allowed five minutes to talk, and at the end of this time the Prince begins to make signals. But he generally gives them a minute more before taking action. "Once or twice I've had to be unpleasant to somebody, but that is very difficult for me," he says. "It is also difficult to keep a big boy from talking too long. I swing my wristwatch in front of his face and say, 'Ah, ah, more than five minutes!' And if somebody makes a really short speech I say, 'Now that is wonderful. The shorter the speech the more it sticks in our minds.' But that does not always help, you know. Some people are very difficult."
At St Simons some of Bernhard's American friends said, "What are you going to do with the American politicians? You just can't shut up a United States congressman or senator. They aren't used to it."
Bernhard didn't quite know himself. But before the meeting he went to the American politicians and in his most ingratiating way said, "Now, look, gentlemen, my American friends are afraid to tell you this, but we have had this rule about five-minute speeches at all our meetings. So would you be very king and do me a favour, a personal favour, and stick to the rule, because I will be finished for the future if I let you get away with a long speech."
"They said they would be delighted; no problem at all. 'It is perfectly O.K. with us.' And they never broke the rule at all. The only person I had trouble with was a European."
The only meeting, other than the first, at which Bernhard did not preside all the way through was the one in Switzerland in 1960. He arrived from one of his "selling trips" looking utterly exhausted and with a bad cold. After presiding at the opening session he developed virus pneumonia. He chose E. N. van Kleffens to take the chair. Prince Bernhard says, "This satisfied everybody, because van Kleffens had once served as President of the Assembly of the U.N."
While the meeting went on Bernhard got sicker and sicker. Meanwhile, back at the Palace, Juliana was becoming very anxious. Professor Nuboer says, "I was in the Palace that Saturday evening when the Queen called Prince Bernhard. He was in a very bad mood, and said there was really nothing wrong with him. However, the next morning the Queen telephoned me and said that she had talked to her husband again and that his temperature had gone up. I said, 'I'll go immediately and ask my colleague Professor Jordan, our specialist on internal medicine, to go with me.'"
Professor Nuboer had made their reservations on K.L.M. and borrowed some money-it was Sunday and the banks were shut-when the Queen called back. "I'm going with you," she said. "I'm too worried to stay here. We'll go in a military plane."
Professor Nuboer says, "We found the Prince in the Conference Hotel near Lucerne. The Queen, Jordan, and I kidnapped him, literally kidnapped him. We brought him back in his own plane. A car met us at the airport, and we took him straight to the hospital at Utrecht. He was there for several weeks."
The Bilderberg meetings are never dull. Even though the group has become, as McGhee says, "like belonging to a fraternity," sparks have flown at nearly every one. At St Simons in 1957 the French, British, and Americans almost came to blows over Suez. At another it was Quemoy and Matsu. The Europeans could understand the American attitude about Formosa, but defending the off-shore islands seemed to them military madness for the sake of tweaking the dragon's tail. "At least we made them understand the necessity of taking more interest in the Far East," says McGhee.
Other hot issues have been the Common Market and British and American attitudes towards it. And Cuba! There is always something to make the sparks fly; and, like lightning, these electrical discharges clear the atmosphere.
Any attempt to evaluate the effect of the Bilderberg group is made nearly impossible by the very nature and object of the conferences, which is not to act or even to convince, but rather to enlighten. As Prince Bernhard says, "You are not asked to agree, merely to listen."
At one point the inevitable lack of concrete results you could put your finger on made Prince Bernhard wonder if its was worth while continuing. He sent out a query to that effect to the members. A storm of protest, especially from the Americans, convinced him that he should go on.
Perhaps the only way of arriving at some assessment of the work is to question those participants who play an active role in international affairs. When asked for an example of a Bilderberg accomplishment George McGhee said, "I believe you could say the Treaty of Rome, which brought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at these meetings and aided by the main stream of our discussions there. Prince Bernhard is a great catalyst."
The formation of an international corporation to finance industrial development in the Near East is another concrete result.
However, the intangible results are admittedly the greatest-the bringing together in friendship, even intimacy, of the leaders from many nations and the effect of their confidential reports on the governments of their countries. An example is the case of the United States during President Eisenhower's administration. When asked if he thought Eisenhower had been influenced by the Bilderberg discussions Prince Bernhard said, "I don't know. Of course, I talked to Ike about it when I needed his help to give American officials the green light to come to the conferences. Although C. D. Jackson and Bedell Smith were in favour of it, there were a lot of people in the State Department who thought one should not go. They would not allow their people to come at first. Then after the first meeting they lifted the ban. Anybody could come. The same thing happened with de Gaulle.
"As to whether Ike paid any attention to the reports of our discussions, I could not say."
However, General Eisenhower said to this writer: "I always had one of my people go to the Bilderberg Conferences [Dr Gabriel Hauge]. I'm in favour of anything-any study of that kind which helps international understanding. The Bilderberg meetings enlightened me; I'd get viewpoints from other than official channels. Not that I always agreed with them; there were so many points of view that somebody had to be wrong; but it was still important to know them."
The present American Government is even closer to Bilderberg because President Kennedy has virtually staffed the State Department with what C.D. Jackson calls "Bilderberg alumni"-Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Under-Secretary of State George W. Ball, George McGhee, Walter Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, Arthur Dean, and Paul H. Nitse over at Defence. However, the Steering Committee tries to keep a fairly even balance between Republicans and Democrats.
Mr Ball recently said, "I think the most useful feature of the Bilderberg meetings is the opportunity for responsible people in industry, statecraft, or politics to have a frank discussion where they will not be publicly quoted and are able to give their personal views without their remarks being considered official.
"This is unique and without parallel. \the character of the meetings has been shaped by the very devoted and astute leadership of Prince Bernhard himself. Without his special position, intelligence and goodwill nothing like this could come about."
Then the Under-Secretary of State added, "I certainly hope to continue to go the meetings . So does Dean Rusk."
The Italian Ambassador in London, Signor Quaroni, said "What a pleasant change! In other places diplomats always lie to each other."
From Prince Bernhard's point of view the Bilderberg group gives him an opportunity to work in private, without violating the parliamentary taboo against royalty mixing in politics, for the unification of Europe and, indeed, of the Atlantic Community as well. He regards this as the best hope of humanity not only in Europe but in all the world. Furthermore, he is highly optimistic about its chances of success.
"It may be oversimplification," Prince Bernhard said, "but I think that with a little bit of goodwill on both sides we will find practical solutions for the British problem, the Commonwealth, and the so-called 'Outer Seven." We would apply the main lines of the Treaty of Rome in principle with certain provisos. For example, it might take certain countries twenty years to adapt to its pattern of tree movement of labour, free movement of goods and raw materials, the lowest possible customs barriers or none, co-ordination of industry, etc.
"I'd like to see us all agree on basic principles, and then let one man, like Jacques Rueff, with a few helpers, work it out. Big committees always fight. If we could all agree beforehand in principle it would result, without doubt, not in Utopia, but in an extremely strong and healthy Europe. This in turn would bring the United States into the economic community. It would encourage a great deal of free trade throughout the world.
"Now, the more free trade you have the more difficult you will make it for the new countries of Africa and Asia to set up an autarchy and live in economic isolation, to adopt trade barriers and quotas which after a hundred years or more we are finding out don't pay. From sheer necessity these people will have to join in free trade. And once you get that you can help an underdeveloped county much more easily than if there are a hundred and fifty thousand restrictions. Also it would be easier for them-their national pride-to accept help. That to my mind is the best possible guaranty against Communist influence."
Within Europe itself Prince Bernhard would like to go even further than economic union. "One thing we need for free exchange of goods is complete interchangeability of money, a common currency. I'm flat out for that," he said. "And this implies a certain political unity. Here comes our greatest difficulty. for the governments of the free nations are elected by the people, and if they do something the people don't like they are thrown out. It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.
"Then there is, of course, national selfishness, putting internal problems first. For instance, no nation in Europe has met its full NATO quota. There is just so much money, and there are so many things needed inside each country. People don't think European enough or Atlantic enough to put the good of all before party politics or national advantage.
"This is the tragedy. Due to the freedom and democracy we cherish, we aren't able to achieve what we all basically want to do. We don't show the world clearly enough that our way is better than the Communist way, because we quibble and throw bricks at each other's heads. Real unity comes only when we are scared-when the Soviets put the pressure on and the issue is war or not war, though I should not say that because it is so old and sad and obvious. . We are moving towards unity, but we crawl like snails when we should run. ."
Even if Europe moves too slowly towards political unity Prince Bernhard optimistically believes that it will arrive if the whole place is not blown up first. He foresees a United States of Europe in which borders are reduced to an absolute minimum, and there is a common currency, a common financial policy, a common foreign policy, and a common policy of trade. The nations will give up so much of their sovereignty as is necessary to implement this.
However, the Prince thinks they will retain their national identities. "Each country has its history and traditions, and the cultural, philosophical, and ethical backgrounds of which it can be extremely proud, and which make us what we are," he said. "It would be extremely stupid to throw all that away. It would be like blowing up your old house before you get a new one built. I think the nations of the United States of Europe will want to keep their flags and their monarchs, certainly for the first fifty or one hundred years, though in that case the monarchs should be jolly good-there will be more demands on a person than ever before.
"What I say is let's abolish our borders in the sense that we are not any longer going to curse our neighbours over them, or deep them out, or try to frighten them as we used to do, but let us live across them as brothers, while maintaining our national characteristics, not only for our own advantage, but for the benefit of all."
Prince Bernhard in his higher flights of optimism even look to the day, fifty or a hundred hears from now, when the Iron Curtain may be rolled up and put away. He believes that as the old Bolsheviks die off and the young Russians, who have lost the hot crusading fervour of the Marxist Revelation, take over, there will be a return to a more democratic type of socialism and a loosening of discipline that will make it possible to bring those lost lands back into the European sphere. "Allen Dulles laughs at me," he says, "but I think that the Russians will again become friends with us, as they have been before.
"For this I know, and even Allen dulles agrees, that Communism inside Russia is not the sacred shibboleth it used to be. A lot of Russians frankly admit that they use it in other countries as propaganda in order to bring them into their sphere. But that in Russia itself it is getting a little out of date. That's a lovely thought, but when it will come, or if it comes in time, who shall say.."
If the facts concerning the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations be accepted, it will be seen that the proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens can be understood. These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ. There are dozens of such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations - Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford - provides an infallible means of recognizing them. One of the most blatant of these agencies, despite its adoption of a secret society technique, is the Bilderberg Group, which seems to have been inspired by an important event. In the year 1908, secret agents of the New York Money Power and their Washington fuglemen had themselves transported in the dead of night to Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. As the result of their plotting there was created, four years later, the means whereby the Money Trust was enabled to seize control of the entire American economy through the mechanism of the Federal Reserve Board. In February 1957, a similarly hush-hush conference took place at St. Simons Island in the same region. A "summary" of the proceedings was entered by Senator Wiley, champion of the Left-wing, in the appendix of the Congressional Record. It referred to "the preservation of peace" under the auspices of Nato, which revealed nothing. The composition of the gathering, however, was revealing. Nobody with Right-Wing views was permitted to attend. Wiley was accompanied by Fulbright, both of the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee. Sulzberger of the New York Times was there. So was the mysterious Gabriel Hauge, said by the Wall Street Journal to be "the expert who tells Ike what to think". So was the only less mysterious George Kennan, former Ambassador to Russia. So were the representatives of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A Supreme Court Judge was reported to have been present, although he did not register. Westbrook Pegler, the courageous American columnist, believes that he was Felix Frankfurter, the patron of Dean Acheson and Alger Hiss among other dubious proteges. There was also Lord Kilmuir, who as Sir David Maxwell Fyfe figured among that of a more improbablelooking Scot than could be imagined. What these agents of Financial Jewry were plotting was nothing to the benefit of the sovereign independence of the nations of the Western World.
The following people were also present:-
J.H. Retinger, Polish Charge d'Affaires in Russia, 1941; Joseph E. Johnson, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Hon. F.D.L. Astor, Editor, The Observer, U.K.; G.W. Ball, Attorney, Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly and Ball, U.S.; Fritz Berg, Chairman, Federation of German Industries, Germany; M. Nuri Birgi, Secretary-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkey; Eugene R. Black, President, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Robert R. Bowie, Ass. Secretary of State for Policy Planning, U.S.; McGeorge Bundy, Dean Faculty of ARts and Sciences, Harvard University; Hakon Christianson, Chairman, East Asiatic Company, Denmark; Walter Cisler, Presidedent, Atomic Industrial Forum, U.S.; Pierre Commin, Secretary, French Socialist Party; B.D. Cooke, Director, Dominion Insurance Company, U.S.; Arthur H. Dean, Law partner of John Foster Dulles, formerly of Sullivan and Cromwell, U.S.; Jean de la Garde, French Ambassador to Mexico; Thomas E. Dewey, Attorney, former Governor of New York, U.S.; Sir William Eddlitt, Air Chief Marshal, Royal Institute, U.K.; Fritz Erler, Socialist M.P., Germany; John Ferguson, Attorney, Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly and Ball, U.S.; Lincoln Gordon, Professor, Consultant to Nato's "Three Wise Men"; Sir Colin Gubbins, Industrialist, U.K.; Lawrence R. Hafstead, Technical Adviser, Atomic Energy Commission; Jens Christian Hauge, Socialist M.P., Norway/ Brooks Hays, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Denis Healey, Labour M.P. (now Minister of Defence), U.K.; Arnold D.P. Heeney, Ambassador to U.S.A., Canada; Michael A. Heilperin, Economist, U.S.; Henry J. Heinz, President, H.J. Heinz & Company, U.S.; Leif Hoegh, Banker, Norway; Paul G. Hoffman, Former Director, E.C.A., U.N. Delegate, U.S.; C.D. Jackson, President, Time Inc., Former Special Assistant to the President, U.S.; Wm. H. Jackson, Former Special Assistant to the President U.S.; Per Jacobson, Man. Director, International Monetary Fund, Sweden; Georg Kurt Keisinger, Director of Special Studies, Rockefeller Foundation; Pieter Liefnick, Director, International Monetary Fund, Netherlands; Imbriani Longo, Director-General, Banco Nazionale del lavoro, Italy; Paul Martin, Minister Health and Welfare, Canada; David J. Mcdonald, President United Steelworkers; Geo. C. McGhee, Director, Middle East Institute; Ralph E. McGill Editor, Atlanta Constitution; Alex W. Menne, President, Association of German Chemical Industries, Germany; Rudolf Mueller, Lawyer, Germany; Robert Murphy, Deputy-Under-Secretary of State U.S.; Frank C. Nash, Attorney former Assistant Secretary of Defence, U.S.; Geo. Nebolsine, Attorney, Coudert Bros, U.S.; Paul H. Nitze, Director, Policy Planning, State Department, U.S.; Morehead Patterson, Deputy Commissioner of Disarmament, U.S.; Don K. Price, Vice-President, Russian Institute, Columbia University; David Rockefeller, Chairman of the Board, Chase National Bank; J.H. Van Joijen, Ambassador to U.S., Netherlands; Dean Rusk, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Paul Rykans, Industrialist, Netherlands; J.L.S. Steele, Chairman, British International Chamber of Commerce, U.K.; Terkel M. Terkelson, Editor, Denmark; John M. Vorys, Member, Foreign Affairs Committee/ Fraser B. Wilde, Comm. on Economic Development; Otto von Amerongen Wollf,Partner, Otto Wollf, Germany; W.T. Wren, Chairman Allied Iron Founders, U.D.; Paul van Zeeland, Financier, former Prime Minister of Belgium.
The Chairman was H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Strange, is it not, that the Prince should be the "front" for a powerful left-wing secret society?
Why were these people present: Who sent them? Who paid their fares? Who sponsored their meeting? What did they discuss? What did they decide? What orders were they given? Was there any common denominator of interest among them? Yes, they were all promoters of internationalism. Were they instructed in the next phase of the advance towards One World? The answer, beyond doubt, is Yes.
The Sunday Times reported during October 1957 that financiers and businessmen from Britain, the United States, Canada and thirteen other Western nations had begun private talks at Fiuggi, Italy, on the European free trade area and the Common Market projects. There were sixty delegates, Mr. Maudling, the Paymaster-General at the time and the Minister responsible for Britain's intended part in the proposed European free trade area, and Viscount Kilmuir, Lord Chancellor, attended. Lord Kilmuir said it was a point of honour that no immediate disclosure be made of the subjects under discussion. The whole point was that members should be able to discuss problems of interest on both sides of the Atlantic without committing their Governments. All the members were speaking as private individuals.
There is no difficulty in recognising in this secret gathering the mysterious Bilderberg Group, of which Prince Bernhard is the official sponsor. As the author surmised after the St. Simons Island meeting, the purpose was to speed up the cause of internationalism and it is interesting to have confirmed the fact that these agents of the Money Power were directly concerned with the European free trade area. Am I right in thinking that the work undertaken by the Bilderberg Group was once undertaken by such bodies as Chatham House? It may even be that the remorseless light I shed on Chatham House activities in the pages of the old Truth may have led to its manipulators seeking new facades behind which to work. As Lord Kilmuir maintained that all the Bilderberg Group's members spoke as private individuals would he also have known whether they paid their own expenses when attending these meetings in different parts of the world? If they did not, who did?
In September 1958 another meeting of the Bilderberg Group took place in Buxton, Derbyshire. With the exception of three very old residents, the Palace Hotel at Buxton was cleared of guests so as to accommodate these cloak and dagger boys, and not only that - the normal hotel staff was temporarily suspended during the invasion so that alien waiters and porters should have the exclusive duty of looking after the conspirators. It would be interesting to know how the foreign servants came to be collected for the job and just what international security tests they were called upon to pass.
The Mayor of Buxton, whose courteous function it was to welcome conferences to his town, was rudely ignored, as the Queen seems to have been, by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, whose presence on British soil one would have though necessitated a courtesy call on Her Majesty. Protocol goes by the board when esoteric international policies are to be discussed.
The security measures taken were prodigious. They made clear that if we had not the honour of entertaining the arch-conspirators in person, at least we had the doubtful distinction of being visited by their very highest agents. They came not in their official capacities but as private citizens. That fact was repeatedly stressed. Yet, according to rumour, there arrived for their use crates of official documents so secret that the crates had to be locked - together with a British officer as custodian - in a room at the Buxton police station. When asked about the authenticity of this rumour, the Conference's spokesman tried to laugh it off. However, after persistent enquiries the spokesman said: "Well, if General Schuyler (Chief of Staff of S.H.A.P.E.) brought along certain documents, that is his affair." I am not saying that General Schulyer did in fact bring along the papers; the above is merely a report of the witnesses. Whatever the truth of the matter, the entire Buxton assemblage stank of its own furtiveness and concealed aims.
At least twenty-four of those who attended the Buxton meeting also attended that on St. Simons Island. Among these were John J. McCloy and David Rockefeller (both Chase Manhattan) and Paul Rykans, a Dutch banker and member of the Anglo-Dutch Trade Council and chairman of an "industrial development" organisation called MIDEC. One hundred and twenty European and six U.S. firms were in this organisation in 1960 for the purpose of "developing" the Middle East. One of the U.S. members of MIDEC was Rockefeller Centre Inc. Both David and Nelson Rockefeller have been and may still be members of the Council on Foreign Relations. James S. Rockefeller is or was the president of the First National City Bank of New York. Anybody who likes to get a Directory of Directors and a few dozen copies of the International Monetary Fund weekly will find plenty of evidence to indicate that a good deal of so-called "economic policy", whether in Washington or Indonesia, Australia or Sweden, emanates from a relatively small circle of interested parties.
The following is a list of the names of conspirators who attended the Buxton meeting. I use the word "conspirators" deliberately. Men pursuing purposes which will bear the light of day do not hold secret meetings in different parts of the world. The whole business could be treated as schoolboy silliness were it not for the fact that there emerged from such gatherings policies hostile to the traditional order of life. To deprive the public of using the Buxton hotel cocktail bar and other amenities so as not to intrude on the privacy of the plotters has about it something of the spirit of 1984 and would be better accepted by the cowed citizens of Moscow than it was by the wholesome burgesses of Buxton.
J.H. Retinger (Hon. Secretary); Jo. E.Johnson (Hon. Secretary in the U.S.); Herman J. Abs, Germany; Dean Acheson, United States; Giovanni Agnelli, Italy; G.W. Ball, U.S.; Walworth Barbour, U.S.; Wilfred Baumgartner, France; Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens, U.K.; Berthold Beitz, Germany; Fritz Berg, Germany; Muharrem Nuri Birgi, Turkey; P.A. Blaisse, Netherlands; James C. Boden, Germany; Erik Boheman, Sweden; Max Brauer, Germany; Randolph W. Burgess, U.S.; Lewis Camu, Belgium; Guido Carli, Italy; Clifford P. CAse, U.S.; Victor Cavendish-Bentick, U.K.; Sir Ralph Cochrane, U.K.; Erich Dethleffsen, Germany; Fritz Erler, Germany; John Ferguson, U.S.; H.T.N. Gaitskell, U.K.; Walter L. Gordon, Canada; Joseph Grimond, U.K.; Sir Colin Gubbins, U.K.;Walther Hallstein (Chairman, European Common Market Commission); Joseph C. Harsch, U.S.; Gabriel Hauge, U.S.; Denis Healey, U.K.; Michael A. Heilperin, U.S.; H. J. Heinz II, U.S.; Leif Hoegh, Norway; C.D. Jackson, U.S.; Viscount Kilmuir, U.K.; E.N. van Kleffens; Viscount Knollys, U.K.; Ole B. Kraft, Denmark; Thorkil Kristensen, Denmark; Giovanni F. Malagodi, Italy; John J. McCloy, U.S.; Geo. C. McGhee, U.S.; Philip E. Mosley, U.S.; Roger Motz, Belgium; Rudolf Mueller, Germany;Alfred C. Neal, U.S.; Geo. Nebolsine, U.S.; Paul H. Nitze, U.S.; David Ormsby-Gore, U.K.; P.F.S. Otten, Netherlands; P.N. Pipinelis, Greece, Alberto Pirelli, Italy; Pietro Quaroni, Italy; Sir Alfred Roberts, U.K.; David Rockefeller, U.S.; Michael Ross, U.S.; Jacques Rueff; Paul Rykans, Netherlands; Carlo Schmid, Germany; C.V.R. Schuyler; J.L.S. Steele, U.K.; Terkel M. Terkelson, Denmark; Henry Tiarks, U.K.; Every A. Vermeer, Netherlands; Marc Wallenberg, Sweden; Otto Von Amerongen, Germany; Paul van Zeeland, Belgium; J.D. Zellerbach, U.S.
In 1961 an article in the Toronto Star Read as follows: "The Tenth Bilderberg Conference attended by seventy delegates from Europe and North America wound up yesterday after three days of discussion of common problems. Participants, whose names were not disclosed, included leaders of the political, industrial, labour and professional fields of both continents, an official statement said. Chairman of the meeting was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who left Quebec yesterday for home after making private visits to cities in Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. The statement said although the conference "followed the original Bilderberg concept of not attempting to reach conclusions or to recommend policies, there was substantial agreement on the need to promote better understanding and more effective co-ordination among the Western nations. Points of particular concern included the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in world policy, the strengthening of both the nuclear and non-nuclear deterrent power of the alliance and the responsibility for control of atomic weapons inside Nato", the statement said. 'The implications for Western unity of the change in the relative economic strength of the U.S. and Western Europe also were discussed at some length.'"
To the unsuspecting all this may seem innocuous, perhaps even fatuous. For instance, there might not appear to be much danger in a body that does not attempt to reach conclusions or to recommend policies. However, there are other factors to be taken into account. Quite a lot of money is needed to fly seventy delegates from all over the world to an annual conference. Who finds that money and why? And who delegates the delegates? The author finds it hard to believe that the expense is incurred merely for the pleasure of staging discussion not aimed at any conclusion. Let there be no doubt about this business. When people like Frankfurter, Dean Acheson and Cyrus Eaton foregather it is not for the purpose of amiable chats and mutual backscratching. If the Bilderberg conferences reach no conclusions and recommend no policies, it is because the conclusions have already been reached and the policies determined, so that the delegates assemble to be told what the form is. They do not need to be given their orders. Once the form is declared they know well enough hat is expected of them, while for our part it be affirmed with assurance that the Bilderberg "power-elite" would not discuss the nuclear power deterrence of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in any sense favourable to countries such as Great Britain retaining nuclear weapons under their own sovereign control.
Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens stated in The Times about June 1960, when writing an obituary of Joseph Retinger, that he, Retinger, "founded the Bilderberg Group, whose meetings under the chairmanship of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands brought together the leading political and industrial personalities from the U.S. and Europe, to discuss ways of removing any source of conflict between the U.S. and her allies. The meetings, held with out any kind of publicity in England, Holland, Turkey, Switzerland, or the United States, brought together leading statesmen who could discuss their problems in privacy and exchange points of view with men of equal eminence in other countries. It was Joseph Retinger who brought them together and knew them all personally."
The author finds it hard to believe that Retinger was anything other than an agent or promoter. Financiers rather than industrialists would be a more accurate description of Groups's inspirators. And no ordinary financiers. The men who find the funds are the international policy makers who seek to shape the world to their own particular specification. International financiers do not take orders for men like Joseph Retinger.
Retinger, I repeat, was an agent. The world is not run by stray idealists,m although agents, of course, may be actuated by genuine idealism. That does not make their projects necessarily wholesome. I affirm that the influences behind the European movement which made use of Retinger's idealism are, from a national and Christian point of view, thoroughly unwholesome and indeed evil, in that what they seek is a monopoly of political and financial power. Evil, too, is the method. Nations are represented - at any rate according to a polite fiction - by their Governments. Who selects the "leading political and industrial personalities" who go cavorting around the globe to attend secret discussions upon world affairs: Is the Bilderberg Group a flying circus nominated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and its dominating partner in America, the Council on Foreign Relations? Some kind of nexus seems certain. Both Chatham House and the Council fit the description of what has been called the Power Elite - "a group of men similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes."And what is the Bilderberg Group if not precisely that?
We may be certain that the Group was not organised by Joseph Retinger as the principal. Who would the principal have been? Baruch? Frankfurter? The Kuhn, Loeb gang? And why the cloak and dagger stuff? Is the Bilderberg Group an apparatus of Grand Orient Masonry? Whatever the answer to that question the atmosphere of plotting in the dark which pervades it has a dank and very nasty smell. Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens would perform a service to the Western Nations if he would describe in more detail the work and background of Retinger, who was a very mysterious person indeed.
There are other points worth noting. It was possible for Dean Acheson, former U.S. Secretary of State, to slip in and out of Britain for the Buxton Conference without exciting any British newspaper comment. The Bilderberg Group had affirmed its desire to strengthen the Nato alliance, which was brought into being to contain Communism. Yet when two American juries found Alger Hiss guilty of perjury in denying that he was a Communist agent, Dean Acheson publicly reaffirmed his friendship with the traitor. Another Bilderberg enthusiast was Cyrus Eaton, the American millionaire who allowed his Pugwash home to be used for Bilderberg sponsored conferences. Yet Cyrus Eaton was notorious for his pro-Communist sympathies.
If it were possible to bring members of the Bilderberg Group before a Commission of Enquiry they would have theses and many other matters to explain. They would also these and many other matters to explain. They would also have to give a more satisfactory answer than any yet offered about the need for a secret society technique so offered about the need for a secret society technique so offered about the need for a secret society technique so stringent that not even the honest British waiters and waitresses at a Buxton hotel could be allowed within earshot of the conspirators. Until Prince Bernhard and his colleagues explain themselves, which is an improbable event, I propose to designate them as the chosen lackeys of the New York Money Power charged with the task of plotting to bring into being a One World tyranny.
My friend and colleague Austen Brooks drew the attention of readers of Candour to another exceedingly curious extra-governmental body working along lines which would suggest its affiliation with the Bilderberg group. Early in 1962 a dozen "leading churchmen" ) of whom, needless to say, one was Canon John Collins) published an "appeal to the British Government and people" urging that Britain should be prepared to renounce her independent nuclear deterrent. Commenting on this, the Observer wrote: "Behind the statement lies a strange and little-known relationship between Church leaders and some of Britain's best-known military pundits. The connection started back in 1955, when Richard Goold-Adams, foreign affairs commentator, Denis Healey, the Labour politician, Professor Blackett and Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Buzzard, former head of Naval Intelligence and an active Churchman, were worried about the lack of serious thinking about strategy in Britain and, in particular, the undue reliance on the strategic H-bomb."(Note the nuclear surrender hand in the "strategic" glove.) This quartet, according to the Observer, "raised the problem" with the then Bishop of Chichester, the late Dr. Bell, who in turn "interested" the chairman and secretary of the Churches' Commission on International Affairs, Sir Kenneth Grubb and the Rev. Alan Booth, and in January, 1957, a conference - described by the Observer as "a strange assembly, eighty-strong, hard-headed military men, journalists and politicians surrounded by clerical cloth" - was held at the Bedford Hotel in Brighton. A continuation committee was set up and the Brighton Conference Association came into being to work against "the undue reliance on the strategic Hbomb".
It was at this point of the story that the Observer opened the bag and let the cat out. "After a year or so,"it wrote, "the money they had collected was beginning to run out. But just at that moment, Denis Healey managed to interest the Ford Foundation in this enterprise. He asked for only 10,000 dollars. They offered ten times as much, and with this the Brighton Conference Association wound itself up and the Institute for Strategic Studies came into existence."
The persuasive Mr. Healey, who "managed to interest" the Ford Foundation in the "enterprise" which was working to get rid of Britain's Nuclear deterrent, was then the Labour Party's shadow Minister of Defence. He was also a leading member of the Fabian Society, a member of the Bilderberg group and, almost certainly, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Small wonder that the policy of the Institute for Strategic Studies, which the American Ford Foundation had brought into being, was soon adopted as the official policy of the Labour Party. In October, 1964, the Fabian Bilderberger Denis Healey became Minister of Defence, an appointment which was the signal for the almost immediate abandonment of a number of British military aircraft projects. Then, early in April, 1965, came what was for all practical purposes the renunciation of the British independent nuclear deterrent - the abandonment of the magnificent British aircraft TSR2. The announcement of this abandonment was made, curiously, not by Mr. Healey but by his colleague Mr. James Callaghan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech. What Mr. Callaghan did not announce was that only a couple of months earlier the Ford Foundation had made a further grant to Mr. Healey's Institute for 100,000 dollars look parsimonious. This was a grant of 550,000 dollars over six years.
After the announcement that TSR2 was to be scrapped, the B.B.C. brought before the television cameras a strategic "expert" to reassure viewers that the decision was "quite right". The "expert" was Mr. Alistair Buchan, Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies. Strangely enough, the B.B.C. omitted to tell viewers of the part played by Mr. Healey and the Ford Foundation in providing Mr. Buchan with the job which "qualified" him to pronounce a benediction on the policy of Mr. Healey. If the Socialist Government wishes to economise, why does it not shut down the Ministry of Defence and transfer its powers outright to the headquarters of the Ford Foundation? That would seem to accord with the facts!
One final fact about the Bilderberg group. At its 1965 meeting it had a new recruit. His Royal Highness Prince Philip. In the present year of grace (1967), Prince Philip attended another secret Bilderberg meeting at St. John's College, Cambridge.
These links dead now: search under "X1-B U-boat", "sub sea recovery", "trident research and recovery inc", and ex-US navy diver "Ed Michaud" who lives in Framingham Mass. USA old site copied below Nazi industrialists escape to the USA in a giant U-Boat before Hitler's fall. Prince Bernhard, Bilderberg supremo, appears to be loitering on the coast! http://mallofmaine.com/ca35/
1945 - U.S. elites help Gestapo boss escape trial by faking his death. As the liberating allied forces closed on Berlin, notorious head of the Gestapo Martin Boormann was smuggled out and under the Atlantic bringing essential components for Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs. Latest research. http://u234.com/hydrick/noname.html
A Preliminary Brief On The Search For Historical Truth
1998 Trident Research & Recovery Inc. - Sub Sea Recovery Inc.
"OPERATION CA-35"is a joint project of discovery conducted by Trident Research & Recovery, Inc. of Framingham, Massachusetts and Sub- Sea Recovery, Inc. of Portland, Maine. It is much more than just a marine salvage operation. Indeed, it is an attempt to discover the facts surrounding the sinking of a legendary German U-Boat off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in August of 1944, and to uncover the reasons for its secrecy for over fifty-four years.
The name assigned to this project is derived from the wartime German Naval marine quadrant location of the U-Boat wreckage initially located in 1993. The term 'CA' refers directly to the German navigational box coordinate designated for the area immediately off the eastern shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with the numbers '35' referring to the location within that designated box.
The process of discovery is a very time consuming matter. The reader must keep in mind that this brief is preliminary and therefore, incomplete. As information is received and assessed by Trident and Sub Sea it will be duly posted within updated and revised versions of this briefing.
The availability of recently declassified military, political and intelligence documents are slowly assisting the professional researcher in filling in the gaps of World War Two history. Instead of seeing what appears to be a convoluted series of events we are now starting to understand just how the geopolitical strategies of the various governments involved in the conflict actually dictated the outcome of the battlefield scenario.
With this in mind, we will relate here a general status of World War Two as it stood during the summer and fall of 1944, and then lay in the minute details that actually affected the important events unfolding during this time frame.
During the summer of 1944 the United States and her Allies, namely Great Britain and the Soviet Union, had commenced the final push to victory over Germany's Third Reich in Europe. The now famous "D-Day" landings on the French Normandy coast were successfully accomplished on 6 June and the German battle lines gradually gave way under the Allied onslaught. The German High Command knew well that it was the beginning of a long retreat and would ultimately end in a total defeat.
In fact, a little over a year earlier in the month of February, 1943 the German military and civilian populace witnessed the disastrous events unfolding on the Russian Front. With the loss of the city of Stalingrad to the Soviet forces those individuals inside Germany with any insight at all could see very well what the inevitable outcome would be. As a result of these German military losses the several Nazi-Opposition groups, already in place within Germany since 1939, now began to increase their activity. These particular individuals and organizations firmly believed that Hitler's plans of domination were a direct threat to their country's best interests. The groups incorporated many of the German social and political elite who had actually assisted Hitler's Fascist machine in the first place, most notably Germany's "Technocrats" of political leaders, industrialists, bankers and highly placed military officers. By February of 1943 these opportunists became increasingly disillusioned with the Hitlerite agendas and commenced making their own arrangements for their post-war futures, both as individuals and as corporate entities.
Highly placed military leaders such as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, Chief of Germany's leading intelligence agency the 'Abwehr', and Field Marshals' Walter von Kluge and Erwin Rommel, as well as several high-ranking staff officers within the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht, actively conspired in the failed attempt to assassinate Adolph Hitler on the 20th. of July, 1944.
While the German military was attempting to eliminate the problem at its source, (Adolph Hitler), the conservative civilian opposition groups were attempting to alter the inevitable outcome of the war by initiating contacts with the "Western Allies", Great Britain and the United States. These various contacts were an effort to end the war for Germany under favorable terms for an armistice. The Nazi Opposition groups were literally fighting the clock, as every day that passed without an end to the war meant the further loss of German life and the wholesale destruction of property and post-war industrial capability. In fact, these specific concerns of a post-war German industrial survival were the prime motives of the Nazi- Opposition.
The Western Intelligence agencies and military commands were well aware of just what was going on inside Germany at this time and actually conducted numerous secret meetings with the German military and civilian leaders in an effort to end the war. However, the Western Allies possessed a vastly different agenda. Upon review of the available declassified political documents it appears that the American parties negotiating certain details with the German representatives had several separate agendas - all of which seem geared more at personal gain rather than the American public's best interest.
The President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had publicly stated as early as 1943 that no terms except "Unconditional Surrender" would be accepted from Germany by the three Allied powers; the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Roosevelt was to maintain this stand throughout the war. However, many of the hard-line political capitalists within the United States Department of State, the Office of Strategic Services and the military intelligence services had a vastly different idea of just how to end the war - all of which were to run contrary to the Presidential administration's policy decisions.
Operationally, the German U-Boat force still managed to keep its U-Boat fleet somewhat active during the summer and fall of 1944. The official records indicate that most of the available U-Boats were operationally concentrated within the North Sea and around the British Isles in its continuing attempt to strangle the Allied supply lines. Occasionally an independent U-Boat patrol would be deployed into the North Atlantic to sink ships, report on weather or both. There were two "Special Missions" deployed against the American coast in 1944, only one of which was to succeed off the Maine coast near the end of the year. In that particular case, the U-1230 successfully landed two agents at Winter Harbor. The success was minimal however, since both men were eventually picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
During the first week of July, 1944 an incident involving a U-Boat and the U.S. Naval Airship "K-14" occurred off Bar Harbor, Maine. As is made so painfully clear in the official Inquiry records, the U-Boat in question brought down the "K-14" with 20mm Anti-Aircraft fire resulting in the loss of six Airship crewmen out of a total compliment of ten men. The Inquiry and related intelligence reports also show that the "K-14" was somewhat successful in at least severely damaging the enemy vessel. Unfortunately, this incident was also kept secret for over 54 years.
Another situation occurred on 20 August of this year. The U-1229 was intercepted on the surface off the eastern edge of the Grand Banks by an American "Hunter-Killer" Naval Task Force as it was proceeding to the American coast on a 'spy-insertion' operation. The U-1229 went down with about one-third of her crew, but 41 survivors of this sinking wererescued as prisoners of war by the American destroyers on the scene.
What was not known by most military men at this time, however, was the fact that the Type XI U-Boat was also proceeding to the American coast - at that time located only 20 nautical miles distant from the U-1229 at the time of the latter's demise.
According to the official design drafts laid out for the German Type XI-B U-Cruiser in 1939, the specifications for this vessel were as follows:
Length Overall: . . . . . . 115 meters (377 ft.)
Breadth: . . . . . . . . 9.5 meters (31.3 ft.)
Depth: . . . . . . . . . 6.2 meters (20.3 ft.)
Extreme Displacement: . . . 3,630 tons.
Deadweight: . . . . . . . 6,800 tons +
Propulsion Machinery: . 2-shaft diesel/electric motors, (eight 12cyl. diesel engines in two separate engine rooms), plus two high-grade electric motors in third compartment.
Armament: . . . . . 4 torpedo tubes in the bow
2 torpedo tubes in the stern
6 torpedoes in ready-fire with
6 spare torpedoes carried below internal storage plates.
Armament: . . . . . 4 127mm Guns in two twin armored turrets.
2 37mm AA mounted on deck amidships.
2 20mm AA mounted in after Wintergarten.
Ammunition Carried: . . 940 rounds total of 127mm.
4,000 rounds total of 37mm.
2,000 rounds total of 20mm.
(all carried in 3 separate magazines)
Crew: . . . . . . . . 110 men, with capability to carry an additional compliment of two company's' of "Special Coastal Troops", ('Brandenburgers')
Cargo Capacity: . . . . 600 cubic tons above provisions.
Accessories: . . . . . 1 One-Man "Arado/Argus 231" reconnaissance seaplane stowed in forward vertical storage tube.
As detailed within the Kriegsmarine "K" Design Office, there were to be a total of four of these monstrous vessels laid down, with the possibility of constructing an additional four vessels should time and resources permit. However, it is known that only four keels were laid and that one was actually launched, the others eventually being scrapped prior to the end of the war before completion. The U-Boat Command intentions were to assign the numbers U-112 through U-115 to the first four vessels of the class. However, Kriegsmarine commissioning records reflect no such assignment of numbers and for all practical purposes the Type XI was never officially commissioned.
Very little is known about the Type XI-B U-Boat. All official histories state that the vessel type was never built and numerous publications indicate that the Type XI-B submarine design went only as far as a preliminary 'keel laying' at the building yards of Deschimag -A.G. Weser in Bremen, Germany. However, there is a subtle hint that at least one vessel of this type was indeed launched from the Deschimag yards. Contained within the records of the Military archive at Freiburgim-Breisgau, Germany is a brief mention of the "actual" yard trials in the Weser River of the Type XI U- Cruiser having attained a surface speed of 26 knots. This is supported to some degree by Eberhard Roessler's impressive publication "The U-Boat", in which this trial record is partly quoted. The details contained in the records of the Military archive in Germany make it very clear that the above speed trials were not obtained from 'tank' tests of models. Therefore, there certainly is some proof of the actual existence of a working and operational model of the legendary Type XI.
Amplified reports obtained from interviewed veterans of both the Allied and Axis intelligence services indicate very strongly that at some point during its existence, most probably in early 1944, the Type XI was berthed at the supposedly neutral ports of Vigo, Spain and Lisbon, Portugal on the Iberian Peninsula. These same sources have stated that the unofficial reference to the Type XI was "Die Schwarz Ritter", ("The Black Knight"). There is no official documentation of this but, considering the sources we must at least consider the high probability of these facts. It is certainly already well established that most of the clandestine activity directed by the Germans toward the Americas originated from the Iberian Peninsula, primarily through a German Industrial-Intelligence organization referred to as "Sofindus".
Of primary importance in connection with this area of course are the German series of Special Operations known as "JOLLE", (translated as "Happy Boat") and "AKTION FEUERLAND", (meaning "Action Land-of-Fire", referring to the southern geographical area of Argentina). These two operations were intended to pave the way for German post-war survival. Noted Nazi leaders and war criminals were in the process of laying the financial foundation for a "Fourth Reich" within the borders of such countries as Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and, most importantly for reasons of easy access, Argentina.
As previously outlined within the 'Overview', the German Opposition groups were becoming increasingly bolder in their attempts at contacting the Western Allies through the various intelligence agencies. Those Opposition Group members associated with German Industrial concerns were the boldest, and possessed all the right connections to persuenegotiations for an acceptable armistice. The sole motive for the German Industrialists was obvious. They wished to maintain their corporate identity AND their financial assets for the post-war period. There were also many American Industrial concerns who wished to see this as well since a large percentage of ownership in these German companies were held by large American corporations - a blatant violation of the 'Trading With The Enemy Act'.
The accessed research documents show that by June of 1944 there were no less than eight separate meetings between German Industrialists and agents of the Office of Strategic Services. The most active American in these efforts was Allen W. Dulles, the OSS Chief of Station head quartered in the neutral city of Berne, Switzerland.
The professional background of Allen Dulles and his brother, John Foster Dulles, are most interesting. It seems that both men were heavily involved in pre-war dealings between American and German Corporations through their law firm of 'Sullivan & Cromwell' in New York City. It was these same pre-war German connections with which Allen Dulles wasnegotiating throughout the winter of 1943 and the summer/fall of 1944. All official documentation points to the fact that the Dulles brothers were not operating in the best interests of United States foreign policy, but were actually motivated through personal reasons to help in creating an acceptable form of armistice which would benefit most the German Industrialists directly. This also involved the safe guarding of certain German securities, which both John Foster and Allen Dulles actively assisted with - regardless of its direct violation of accepted U.S. Treasury and Presidential administration policy. In short the Dulles brothers, along with a handful of U.S. diplomats and intelligence operatives, helped Nazis and Anti-Nazis alike to hide negotiable securities from Allied confiscators and at the same time assisted in negotiating an end to the war along lines which were contrary to the "Unconditional Surrender" guidelines as set forth jointly by the three major Allies.
While all of these manipulations were going on within the Allied camp, Germany was desperately trying to protect what she had left of her industrial and monetary systems. Every day that passed without a negotiated armistice meant the further loss of property and post-war capability. It is well documented that major German corporations began making plans for the safeguarding of its resources in supposedly "neutral" countries while continuing to pursue diplomatic agendas.
Of particular note are the individual operations of German corporations. Firms such as I.G.Farben and Krupp Industries were known to have liquidated their stock holdings into either gold coin or bars by June of 1944 in anticipation of secreting these hard assets into the neutral countries of Switzerland, Lichenstein, Portugal and, most importantly - Argentina. Indeed, the Krupp concerns alone possessed vast estate holdings in Argentina and post-war records confirm that many millions worth of negotiable securities did make it to these estates via U-Boat transport for eventual deposit in the German controlled banks of Banco Aleman Transatlantico and Banco Tornquist.
What helped to speed up both the safe guarding of Germancorporate assets and attempts at armistice negotiations were thedecisions of the Breton Woods International Monetary Conference held at Breton Woods, New Hampshire between 1 - 20 July, 1944. Most of the Allied Nations represented at this conference voted for the dissolution of the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, a major money-launderer for the Nazis. With the loss of this particular bank the German corporations would find it much more difficult to move their ill-gotten profits out of Germany. On 9 July the Breton Woods Conference passed what is referred to as 'Resolution No. 6', which called for the dissolution of the Bank for International Settlements and the monitoring of the German movement of corporate wealth into neutral countries. Combined with a desperate need to negotiate an armistice this created a "Controlled Panic" situation within the German Industrial community.
When one studies the known movements of wealth and the options then open to both the German Anti-Nazi diplomats and Industrialists, it becomes obvious that drastic measures are indeed being planned. In September of 1944 a much delayed Finnish Intelligence report surfaced referring to a "Hitler Escape Boat" being made available at the port of Danzig, Poland as of early July. When one studies the details mentioned in this report there is only one conclusion: the alleged "Hitler Escape Boat" is none other than the Type XI-B U-Cruiser... the same vessel which was never officially commissioned into the Kriegsmarine. The very same vessel which is not supposed to even exist!
The long trail of records show that this vessel departed the port of Danzig, (Gdynia), on the afternoon of 20 July, 1944 - the same day as the assassination attempt on Adolph Hitler by the Nazi-Opposition. Records also indicate very strongly that the German Industrialists were behind the deployment of the Type XI-B U-Boat. One can only assume that the excuse for this vessel's existence in acting as a "Hitler Escape Boat" was only an accepted cover story for the benefit of the Nazi-Opposition, as quite obviously Hitler himself was not embarked on board the vessel at the time of its departure.
A "Controlled Panic" caused the Industrial Opposition to deploy this vessel as quickly as possible for a two-fold mission: to negotiate an acceptable armistice directly with U.S. representatives and to export to Argentina at least a portion of the German corporate securities. Thirty-Seven days later the Type XI-B U-Cruiser arrived off the Massachusetts coast - committed to her clandestine mission.
The date of 25 August, 1944 appeared to begin as any normal day along the Eastern Sea Frontier. But, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence had been continuously briefed over the past few days by the British Admiralty "ULTRA" of an "Unknown" U-Boat heading their way. On 15 August Admiralty informed U.S. Navy "COMINCH", (meaning Commander-In-Chief), that a U-Boat they had designated as "LT" was heading across the Atlantic and that they suspected it was on a "SPECIAL MISSION" since it was observing radio silence and not reporting its daily position, as was the normal routine among U-Boat Commanders of the time.
On the 17th. of August British Admiralty appears to be reasonably sure that the mystery vessel was bound to the American coast, but inquire further from U.S. "COMINCH" for any additional information that may help in their assessments. Simultaneously to this tracking the U.S. Navy was following the movements of the U-1229, designated as the "RJ", (Red Jig), which appeared to be running a parallel course to the mystery U-Boat.
By the 18th. British Admiralty admitted to U.S. "COMINCH" that the heading of "LT", (Love Tare), "REMAINS OPEN", suggesting that all are totally confused as to the subject vessel's actual destination and purpose.
Then on 20 August the U-1229 was successfully sunk by U.S. Naval forces just east of the Grand Banks, as stated within the "ULTRA" radio- intercept transmission, as follows:
"TWO OFFICERS AND ONE PROPAGANDIST AMONG 41 P/S FROM LOVE EASY x C.O. LOST x YOUR 1279 PARA 4 x LOVE TARE HEADING BAFFLING BUT BEST GUESS IS HE IS APPROACHING ST JOHNS AREA x THIS CONSISTENT WITH AMERICA II..."
Again, on the 21st. U.S. "COMINCH" requested further information from the British Admiralty concerning the unknown U-Boat in question by stating:
"WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR FURTHER VIEWS AND WHEN CONVENIENT COMMENT ON QUERIES MY 386 AND 387 x".
After comparing all of the pertinent documents to the numerous other operational intelligence material is becomes obvious that the "ULTRA" staff are completely unaware of the actual mission of the Type XI-B U-Cruiser, whereas certain other intelligence operatives are totally aware of the facts. This is a typical example of "need to know" restrictions between intelligence departments.
By the early evening of the 25th. it becomes obvious that the Type XI was successful in evading the U.S. Naval Task Forces east of the Grand Banks, as she surfaces at approximately 1600 hours just south of the Great Round Shoal Channel seven miles east of Great Point, Nantucket. Due to a submarine sighting by a commercial Pan-Am Plane at this time, the Naval Airship Squadron 'ZP-11' based at South Weymouth, Massachusetts orders the Naval Airship "K-25" to divert from its escort patrol 60 miles to the northeast and to investigate the reported sighting. Local vessels of the Northern Ship Lane Patrol are also ordered to the scene, which included two Coast Guard 83-footers and two 110 foot Sub-Chasers.
At this same time O.N.I. Telegrapher Preston Howley was monitoring the U-Boat's wireless transmission from the Office of Naval Intelligence Radio Intercept Station located at Chatham, Cape Cod, only fourteen miles to the northwest of the U-Boat's position. According to Howley, the transmission was originating from an "S-5" position, (Navalparlance meaning from a very close location), and was being sent out on a 'diplomatic B- Bar' signal. This meant that this particular German U-Boat was sending diplomatic messages in a "High Priority" status. Given what we now know about this vessel's mission parameters, this diplomatic message tends to run parallel with the established facts. Howley described the message as being sent in three parts lasting just a few minutes each and separated by approximately two or three minutes. The total message lasted perhaps twenty minutes, enough to fill three legal-size teletype pages of coding data.
O.N.I. Telegrapher Howley duly re-transmitted this message over his teletype to the U.S. Naval Cryptographic Center in Washington, D.C. Within half an hour the message bounced back to his station from Washington with the statement that they wished him to verify the coding and destination address, which he did. Howley verified the coding and address which, looking back on it fifty-four years later, he firmly believes was destined for the White House Map Room. The White House Map Room was not just the President's War Room during World War Two. It was also an intelligence center for combined services - managed by the Department of State itself. The implications of Howley's experiences and later assessments are obvious.
The following operations, which lasted over two days, are code named "OBSCURE CINCH" and "LADY BULL". According to the 'Official' record these "Special Searches" resulted in no activity and no confirmation of any subsequent action at the scene. The fact that these operations occurred at exactly the same location as the present location of the wreckage of the Type XI-B discovered in 1993, however, is extremely indicative. Veteran interviews have revealed that the subject U-Boat was actually sunk by the Naval Airship "K-25", with the small surface vessels conducting a 48 hour surface search for survivors and debris. The official records certainly tend to support the follow-up search for debris, often termed as a "Yankee Search".
Unfortunately, only a further declassification of existing"Operational" documents would provide additional insight into exactlywhat happened and how it happened.
The first hint of the existence of a U-Boat wreck off Cape Cod occurred in 1988, when now Trident President Edward Michaud heard for the first time the accepted stories of its demise off the Cape from a local tug-boat skipper named Warren LeGyte. Michaud had been running a sixty-one foot crew-boat out of Boston for the then ongoing MWRA OutfallProject. Every night Michaud and his fellow crewmen would bunk in Warrens 100 foot tug "Georgina A", then tied up at one of the East Boston docks. Since hearing of the legendary U-Boat, Ed would query Warren of what he knew of the vessel and its location. In due time the MWRA contracts would end and Michaud would eventually locate the various veterans who were involved in the original 1944 incident.
By June of 1993 Michaud had joined up with several dedicated professionals in an attempt to re-locate the legendary Cape Cod U-Boat and on the 5th. of that month the first hazy side scan sonar images of the wreckage were obtained. Equipment and financing, however, were slow in coming and it was 9 December of 1993 before any detailed sonar images of the wreck could be obtained.
Upon the initial discovery in June it was assumed by all involved in the project that the U-Boat located off Cape Cod was a standard German Type IX-C/40 submarine on a routine war patrol at the time of its loss. However, when the detailed sonar images were obtained in December it was immediately apparent that what had been found was indeed much larger in both length and bulk. After weeks of study and comparisons with knownGerman building plans it became obvious that what had been found was actually a submarine that, according to all known histories, was not supposed to exist! Michaud and his team had found a German Type XI-B U-Cruiser - in and of itself a major discovery.
By November of 1994 the first detailed sonar imagery of the Type XI armored gun-mounts were obtained utilizing E.G.&G sonar equipment. This left little doubt as to the vessel's structural confirmation. The following month of December brought with it a dive to the confirmed wreck site by Michaud and fellow diver Mike Turner. Although underwatervisibility was at an all time low of one foot, a total of fifteen small artifacts were recovered from around the wreck's pressure-hull. It was noticed that the wreck overall was heavily encased in huge drifts of sand ledges, as is to be expected in the area. As an example, just several miles to the west the 325 foot long wreckage of the steam-freighter "Dixie Sword" is almost completely covered in the same pattern of sand disposition.
In March of 1995 Michaud and his group incorporated as Trident Research & Recovery, Inc. and by June the new company had filed for, and received, exclusive rights of salvage for the German Type XI-B U-Boat in the First Federal District Court in Boston. Under this Admiralty claim, Civil Action No. 95-11374RCL, Trident continued its survey of the site.
Of special interest to the company was the exact disposition of the wreckage and how this information correlated with the known research facts.
An Archaeologist was added to the survey team to insure proper methodology in the project. Additional Archivists and Researchers were consulted and the process of discovery continued both in the Archival repositories and on the site of the wreck itself.
As of August, 1997 Trident Research & Recovery, Inc. and Sub-Sea Recovery, Inc. of Portland, Maine combined their resources in order to bring the latter's experience, expertise and high technology ability to bear on the Project. Trident and Sub-Sea had been working jointly on other interesting research projects in the recent past, so it seemed only natural to combine the resources of both companies on the "Operation CA-35" Project.
The new Joint Venture will concentrate on obtaining video-tape footage of the Type XI-B wreck site and is presently planning on follow-up recovery operations. All vessel artifacts so recovered are slated for preservation and ultimate public display at the U.S.S. Salem Museum located in Quincy, Massachusetts. Needless to say, this should make for a rather impressive and informative stage for further public dissemination.
It should be noted that Trident has attempted on many occasions to open a dialogue with the respective offices of the U.S. Department of State, the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S. Department of the Navy. All such requests for open discussion have gone ignored. It is hoped that in the near future this situation can be resolved. However, given the political revelations as described above, its really not very surprising that Government offices refuse to discuss this Project and its related investigations.
Several Senators and Congressmen have been notified by Trident in an attempt to both open such dialogues and assist in further investigations into the original 1944 incident. We at Trident and Sub-Sea believe that there will probably be more developments in this area as the Project moves forward.
As an additional note, if all of those very fine authors listed in Section "C" of the following Source Citations had been aware of the existence and deployment of the German Type XI-B there is no doubt that they too would have put the pieces together! Apparently, the missing link was the Type XI.
There has been some very interesting revelations in the Project's follow-up of research data. Due to the efforts of contributing researcher Mr. Eric Brothers U.S. State Department Protocol documents are now available to confirm one of this investigation's long-standing curiosities - the visit of members of the Dutch Royal Family to Chatham,
Cape Cod during the very same time-frame in which the German Type XI-B U-Boat was known to have been operational off Cape Cod.
These documents consist of a series of notifications between the representatives of the Dutch Royal Family in exile and the Protocol Section of the Department of State. On the surface they do indeed appear to be routine in nature. It is only when viewed with the other known occurrences off Cape Cod at this time that these Protocol records seem to indicate more than just routine procedure.
For example: One of the most obvious details that stand out is the sudden departure from Chatham of Princess Juliana and her royal attendants on the morning of the 26th. of August, 1944, only hours after the known destruction of the Type XI fourteen miles to the southeast. This, combined with a published news report in the local Cape Cod Times for that date, quote the Princess as opening a short public statement upon her departure, stating: "I will not talk about anything political and cannot take questions". She goes on to say how the Royal Family enjoyed their stay at the Chatham Bars Inn, etc.
Within five minutes the impromptu interview is over and the Royal Family departs by car for Boston enroute to Canada. The fact that these State Department Protocol documents were only declassified at the time Mr. Brothers requested to view them in July of 1997 is possibly indicative - fifty four years after the fact.
To add to this new information Trident had conducted background research into the Dutch Royal Family due to its suspicions and has confirmed the following:
1) The Royal Consort, Prince Bernhardt, Husband of Juliana since 1937, was previous to their marriage an active card-carrying member of Hitler's black-shirted SS.
2) Prince Consort Bernhardt was employed prior to, during, and after the war by I.G.Farben's Industrial Espionage Unit "NW-7" which, needless to say, placed him under great suspicions by both the British and American intelligence communities. The mere fact of his employment as an "industrial spy" for Farben places him squarely within the sphere of the German Industrial "community", links for which have already been established with the Type XI-B U-Boat.
There are many more details regarding the Dutch Royal Family, Prince Bernhardt, Princess Juliana and the German Industrialists which have not been included in this specific brief due to space considerations. However, the basic facts as listed above give very strong indications regarding the Dutch Royal visit to Cape Cod at this specific time in July and August of 1944. Suffice it to say that there is the very strong possibility that Prince Consort Bernhardt, through his wife Princess Juliana, may very well have been acting as a sort of liaison or facilitator in connections for Armistice Negotiations between German Industrialists and certain members of the American Department of State and Intelligence Community. The final proof for this is as yet not confirmed, but the stage is certainly set for such endeavors. Perhaps the amplified documentation for such a situation is contained within the hull of the Type XI off Cape Cod.
Listed below are only a few of the Archival Documents accessed by Trident researchers and contributing researchers for this project. To cite each and every document in our possession relative to the subject matter is a task that goes well beyond this brief at this time. However, for those readers who wish to know more about the geopolitical and financial atmosphere relative to the time frames layed out in this brief we highly recommend the recent book publications referenced below in section "C", all of which should be available in most public libraries.
Record Group 181, Records of the Naval Districts and Shore Establishments as contained within the Federal Records Center, Waltham, Massachusetts.
1) Eastern Sea Frontier - Northern Group Reports, (War Diary), January, August & September, 1944, box 2, Entry S-2425, Declassified 1 May, 1981 per D.O.D. Directive ZMCM-8200.10/373/523.
2) Eastern Sea Frontier - Northern Group Air Control Desk "Smooth" & "Rough" Logs, box 3, Entry S-2425, July and August, 1944. Declassified 1 May, 1981 per D.O.D. Directive ZMCM-8200.10/373/523.
3) Miscellaneous Papers of the Commander and Sub- Commander, Eastern Sea Frontier - Northern Group, Records of the District Intelligence Officer, 1st. Naval District, Boston, Massachusetts.
Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of State, Decimal File 1940-1944, 856.00/566A through 856.01/27, box No. 5298, (NND 802116).
Record Group 226: Records of the Office of Strategic Services,
1) "Memorandum by Paul Hagen: How to Collaborate with the Anti-Nazi Underground In Germany", Entry 106, Box 12, Folder 88. (10 Apr., 1942)
2) "Letter From Allen W. Dulles To William J. Donovan: Suggestions For Psychological Warfare", Entry 106, Box 9, Folder 70. (8 May, 1942)
3) "Telegram From Allen W. Dulles to OSS Washington: German Efforts To Establish Contact with Americans, Entry 134, Box 307. (13 Jan., 1943).
4) "Memorandum by the OSS Morale Operations Branch in London: Suggestions For a German Underground Plan", Entry 139, Box 175, Folder 2316. (31Aug., 1943).
5) "Telegram From Allen W. Dulles to OSS Director William J. Donovan: Nuclei of the German Opposition", Entry 134, Box 340, Folder 1819. (21 Sept., 1943).
6) "Report by OSS Agent Theodore A. Morde: Conversations with German Ambassador Franz von Papen in Turkey", (known as the 'Morde-Papen Plan'), Entry 139, Box 175, Folder 2316; also in Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, listed under Roosevelt Papers, PSF File, Box 153, OSS/ Donovan Folder, 1941-1943. (6 Oct., 1943)
7) Report from "DOGWOOD", (Alfred Schwarz), OSS Istanbul to OSS Washington: OSS Channel to the German High Command", Entry 92, Box 951, Folder 5.
8) "Herman Plan: Expose on the Readiness of a Powerful German Group to Assist Allied Military Operations Against Nazi Germany", Entry 180, A-3304, Microfilm Roll 68. (22 Dec., 1943)
9) "Letter from OSS Agent "Dogwood", (Alfred Schwarz), OSS Istanbul to U.S. Military Attache Gen. Richard D. Tindall: Plea for the Support of Helmuth James Graf von Moltke's Peace Initiative", Entry 190, Microfilm Collection 1462, Roll No. 52, frames 314-319. (29 Dec., 1943).
10) "Memorandum by OSS Instanbul Agents "Dogwood", (Alfred Schwarz), and "Magnolia", (Alexander Ruestow), Secret Meetings Between German and Allied Emissaries". Entry 92, Box 592, Folder 3. (4 Apr.,1944)
11) "Memorandum from OSS Assistant Director G. Edward Buxton to Secretary of State Cordell Hull: Overtures by German Generals and Civilian Opposition for a Separate Armistice", Entry 146, Box 234, Folder 3294. (16 May, 1944).
Record Group 242: National Archives Collection of World War Two
Foreign Records Seized.
1) Microfilm Collection T-1022, Records of the German Navy, (Kriegsmarine), Individual U-Boat Logs, (KTB), and U-Boat Command Records, (BdU/KTB).
2) Carded Information Identifying Agents employed by the German Intelligence, (Abwher and RSHA), MLR No. 27A, box 1.
Doenitz, Admiral Karl: "Ten Years and Twenty Days", pub. by The World Publishing Company, 1959, (first published in Germany under the title "Zehn Jahre und Zwanzig Tage" in 1958).
De Launay, Jacques: "Secret Diplomacy of World War II, Secret Dossiers of History", translated by Eduard Nadier, published by Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp., 1963.
Farago, Ladislas: "Aftermath, Martin Bormann and the Fourth Reich", published by Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1974. ISBN 671-21676-7.
"The Game of the Foxes, The Untold Story of German Espionage in the United States and Great Britain during World War II", published by the David McKay Company, Inc., 1971. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-179352.
Galante, Pierre: "Operation Valkyrie, The German General's Plot Against Hitler", translated from the French by Mark Howson and Cary Ryan, published by Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1981. ISBN 0-06-038002-0.
Grose, Peter: "Gentleman Spy, The Life of Allen Dulles", published by the Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1994. ISBN 0-395-51607-2.
Heideking, Jurgen and Mauch, Christof and Frey, Marc: "American Intelligence and the German Resistance to Hitler", edited and published by Westview Press, Inc., 1996. ISBN 0-8133-2687-7.
Higham, Charles: "Trading With The Enemy, The Nazi- American Money Plot, 1933 - 1949", published by Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1983. ISBN 0-76070-009-5.
Loftus, John and Aarons, Mark: "The Secret War Against The Jews, How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People", published by St. Martin's Press, 1994. ISBN 0-312-11057-X.
Simpson, Christopher: "The Splendid Blond Beast, Money, Law and Genocide In The Twentieth Century", published by Common Courage Press, 1995. ISBN 1-56751-062-0.
"Blowback: Nazis, The CIA and the Roots of the Cold War".
Smith, Dr. Arthur L., Jr.: "Hitler's Gold, The Story of the Nazi War Loot", published by Berg, Inc., 1996. ISBN 1-85973- 921-0.
The New York Times:
9 July, 1944: "For Action On Nazi Looters".
6 Sept., 1944: "Fall of Germany Rumored In Error"
14 Sept., 1944: "Bluff Offensive Seen By Germans"
18 Sept., 1944: "Hitler Submarine Reported All Set"
21 Sept., 1944: "Dulles To Continue To Head Peace Group"
3 Oct., 1944: "U-Boat Escapes Charged: Moscow-German Group Says 'Nazi Rats' Flee 'Sinking Hitler Ship'"
The New York Times News Service:
22 Mar., 1997: "Argentina Hunting For Sub That May Have Carried Nazis", and "Argentina Evades Its Nazi Past"
The Boston Traveller:
20 May, 1945: "Did Hitler Escape In A Sub?"
The Cape Cod Times:
26 Aug., 1944: "Dutch Princess Juliana Bids an Early Farewell"
Many individuals have contributed to the accumulated research data contained within this preliminary brief. Unfortunately, there are a handful of World War Two era Intelligence veterans who unselfishly shared all that they knew, but who wish to remain annonymous. To these people we owe a great deal and we can asure them that their openess with us was not in vain.
Just as important are the many other individuals, civilians and veterans alike, who assisted greatly in piecing together this most complex history. Without all of them pulling together in coordinating the endless pieces of the puzzle the acquired data would just be a confusing mass of details with no association. A few of these dedicated people are listed below:
Richard Weckler - Eric Brothers
Grant B. Southward, Lt.Cdr.USN(ret.) Richard Van Treuren
Joseph Fallon III - Ulrich Iudofsky
Preston Howley, USN/ONI(ret.) Bob Forand, Lt.Cdr.USN(ret.)
Greg Brooks Doug Phiel
Michael Turner Allen Stewart
Mrs. Margaret Pear Ronald Baker, USCG(ret.)
Mrs. Michael Levine Paul Kemprecos
Lawrence Cavenaugh Joseph Grimes
Adm. Kendall Pease, USN Judy Van
Warren LeGyte Earl Legyte
Henry Huppler, GDR David E. Hayes, USN(ret.)
Claud Lumpkin, USN/ONI(ret.) James White
Courtney Skinner James Fahey
James Timmins, Esq. Donald Timmins
Bill Charbonneau R. Michael Brown, Esq.
George Servouksnese Stanly Tedesky
The Naval Airship Association
Magellan Systems Corporation
San Dimas, California
EG&G Marine Instruments, Inc.
Andy Lynn Boats, Inc.
American Underwater Search & The U-Boot Archiv, Cuxhaven
Survey, Ltd. Germany
The U.S.S. Salem Museum
Jan., 1936: The Kriegsmarine 'K' Design Office proposes the Type XI U-Cruiser specifications.
Oct., 1948: Orders for the Type XI construction are awarded to the German shipbuilding yards of Deschimag - A.G. Weser in Bremen.
8 Sep., 1939: Admiral Doenitz calls for the building and completion of the Type XI "Long Distance" U-Boat.
Aug., 1939: Anti-Nazi conspirator Carl Goerdeler travels to the United States and meets with U.S. Foreign Affairs officers of the Dept. of State in an attempt to avoid war with the Western Allies. (met with Cordell Hull, Henry Wallace, Sumner Welles, G.S. Messersmith, Herbert Hoover, Henry Lewis Stimpson, Henry Morganthau, Jr., Owen D. Young).
Goerdeler is joined in his trip by Gerhard Westrick, a known representative of German Industry. It is documented that Goerdeler transmitted to U.S. personnel a "Peace Program".
Sep., 1939: Construction on the four Type XI hulls commences at Bremen.
26 Oct., 1939: German Foreign Officer Trott-zu-Solz, (a confirmed Anti-Nazi), arrives in New York in an attempt to make certain American dignitaries aware of just what is happening in Europe as a result of Hitler's planning.
Nov., 1939: Orders for the construction of the Type XI U-Boats at Bremen are "Officially" cancelled. Indications are that the four keels remain in 'ordinary' on the building slips for an unknown amount of time.
May, 1941: German Foreign Officer Ulrich von Hassell uses his contact with American businessman Federico Stallforth, (a New York Banker), to maintain the peace between the U.S. and Germany. Donovan, Wilkie and Wood are mentioned as possible negotiators in this matter.
Oct., 1941: For the first time von Hassell mentions the plans about a German "coup" against Hitler while visiting Stallforth in New York.
9 Dec., 1941: Germany declares war on the United States as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December.
Nov., 1942: The disastrous German defeats around Stalingrad indicates to all Allies and Germany the inevitable defeat of the Nazis.
Nov., 1942: Allen Dulles of the American Office of Strategic Services Intelligence is sent to Switzerland for the express purpose of setting up O.S.S. contacts with the Nazi Opposition.
Apr., 1943: Germany begins the evacuation of North Africa to the Italian mainland.
Sep., 1943: Allied forces invade Sicily and the "Boot" of Italy.
Oct., 1943: German Foreign Officer Trott-zu-Solz meets O.S.S. Chief Allen Dulles in Switzerland to discuss details of a proposed armistice between Germany and the Western Allies.
Nov., 1943: The plans for the safeguarding of German Industrial and State securities, (known as "Aktion Feuerland"), is approved by Martin Bormann. Plans include the use of submarines to transport to Argentina the Nazi securities and additional transfers to Switzerland, Lichtenstein and the Vatican Bank.
Nov., 1943: General Donovan, head of the O.S.S., brought to New York a written "Peace Proposal" which included an offer of negotiation from the Nazi Opposition.
Nov., 1943: The Nazi Opposition, via German General Georg Thomas, manages to deliver to the O.S.S. two coding machines for the specific purpose of opening communications between American and Anti-Nazi negotiators. This is probably brought to New York by Donovan and the items are soon transferred to the State Department. "There was to be a discussion with President Roosevelt the next morning to decide on whether to follow-up on the offer or not".
Jan., 1944: Admiral Canaris is removed from his position as Chief of the German intelligence agency known as the 'Abwehr' and placed under house arrest for one month. (Canaris is documented as having been an active conspirator against Hitler and the Nazis).
Mar.-Jun., 1944: "Germany's situation was so desperate, however, that every effort, however hopeless, had to be made to persuade the Allies to make some positive gesture. In many of his reports from Berne, Switzerland Dulles urged that something be done along these lines, (of negotiation)".
Apr., 1944: Trott-zu-Solz again meets with Allen Dulles in Switzerland to discuss procedures for armistice negotiations.
16 May, 1944: The German Opposition offers to the O.S.S. to help Allied military units get into Europe if the Allies agree to let Germany hold the Eastern Front against the Soviets. (this plan includes the landing of Allied airborne troops into Berlin and Bremen, as well as withdrawing from France to allow the Allies an uncontested landing).
6 June, 1944: The Allied invasion of Europe begins with the landings along the Normandy coast of France, known as "D-Day".
19 June, 1944: The German Krupp Industries completes the liquidation of its holdings of bonds, stocks, etc. into gold, precious stones and currency to the tune of 68 million US dollars and makes plans to ship said securities to the former free-state of Danzig on the Polish coast. (shipment disappears shortly there-after).
2 July, 1944: The U.S. Naval Airship "K-14" is shot-down by a German U-Boat off the coast of Bar Harbor, Maine.
5 July, 1944: The German mine laying submarine U-233 is reportedly sunk southeast of Nova Scotia.
7 July, 1944: Mr. van Tets, Dutch Royal Secretary to Princess Julianna of the Netherlands, crosses the Canadian border by car enroute from Ottowa to Boston.
9 July, 1944: The Nazi Opposition plans to begin the liquidation of the war by withdrawing on the western front and forcing the Eastern Front against the Soviets. Dulles reports these details from Switzerland on 12, 13, and 18 July.
14 July, 1944: Capt. Susink, Dutch Security for Princess Julianna of the Netherlands, departs Ottawa bound to Boston.
17 July, 1944: Dutch Princess Julianna and party depart from Canada enroute to Cape Cod via Boston.
19 July, 1944: Princess Julianna arrives at Chatham, Cape Cod.
20 July, 1944: "Operation Valkyrie" - the failed coup attempt against Hitler commences. The operation fails by 21 July.
20 July, 1944: A German Naval Mutiny occurs in the afternoon within the Baltic sea ports of Danzig, Memel, Gotenhafen and Stettin as a result of the coup attempt against Hitler.
20 July, 1944: The Type XI departs the Danzig/Gdynia area of the Baltic Sea enroute to the American coast.
1 Aug., 1944: "ULTRA" intelligence reports that one U-Boat is sighted leaving the Baltic and two U-Boats are in the North Atlantic bound West.
7 Aug., 1944: German Economic Agent Carl Heinz Weber meets with Allied contacts in Lisbon, Portugal to work out Nazi-Opposition concessions relative to Armistice negotiations. German contacts are willing to "Meet any or all Industrial or Territorial demands".
10 Aug., 1944: Leading Nazi Industrialists meet in Strasbourg to determine future procedure on the continuing safe-guarding of Industrial and State assets.
25 Aug., 1944: O.N.I. Radio Intercept Telegrapher intercepts and re-transmits a diplomatic "B-Bar" U-Boat transmission from an "S-5" location off Cape Cod.
25 Aug., 1944: The Naval Airship "K-25" encounters the Type XI on the surface during patrol, 14 miles southeast of Chatham, Cape Cod. The vessel is sunk in one attack-run on Orion Shoal.
25 Aug., 1944: The Washington O.N.I. Attack Log shows an unknown German U-Boat transmission sent during the early evening, stating that she is "Being attacked by aircraft". Eastern Sea Frontier Northern Group Command designates a U-Boat search within the area of Orion Shoal off Cape Cod, MA.
26 Aug., 1944: Princess Julianna departs prematurely from Cape Cod and returns to Canada, only hours after the sinking of the Type XI off Chatham.
Time Vessel Position Action
1400 Decatur-Nelson convoy 42-45N 69-10W Enroute Kearney, NJ
1600 K-25 Airship South Weymouth Departs for Decatur Nelson
1619 Sub Chaser SC-1022 41-45N 69-50W Patrolling southbound
1656 Pan Am Comm. Flt. 41-23N 69-47W Reports Two step Sub
1800 Decatur-Nelson 42-30N 69-02W South Bound
1810 K-25 42-23N 68-05W Dispatched to Sub site
1915 K-25 41-40N 69-50W Surfaced Sub 12 mi. S
1935 K-25 Engages & sinks U-boat
2000 SC-1022 41-32N 69-42.5W Notified of Sub sighting To Course 209 Mag.
TIME -LAPSE CHART - CHRONOLOGY OF AUGUST 26 AND 27, 1944
August 26 Special call signs designated for vessels in Sub sighting area
August 26 K-27 on "Special Search" to Orion Shoal
August 26 Meetings held with ONI listening station personnel (Chatham)
"Events of August 25 never happened"
August 26 Debriefing of K-25 crew "Events of August 25 never happened"
August 27 K-19 on "Special Search" of area of Sub Sighting
Blimp Squadron 11 War Diary shows: K-25 on Patrol 6 hours and 5 minutes
Ammunition expended: 1 smoke float, 1 Bronze slick, 6 MKX:M bombs
No report of Submarine engagement
Pilot's flight report for August 25, 1944 is missing
Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
Enlisted May 26, 1943
September 1943 - Assigned Radio Intercept Station, Chatham, Cape Cod
On Duty, evening of August 25, 1944
January 1945 - Transferred to Guam
Discharged April 24, 1948
1910 Joins Imperial Navy
1916 Joins U-boat Branch
July 1935 Appointed commander of Submarines (total of three U boats)
30 January 1943 Appointed Grossadmiral Commander in Chief of the Navy
30 April 1945 President of the German Reich
25 May 1945 Surrenders to Allies
August 1946 Tried at Nuremburg /Sentenced to 10 yrs.
October 1956 Released from Spandau prison
1958 Published memoirs "10 Years & 20 Days" (doc existence of XI type)
24 Dec.1980 Died Aumhle, Germany
DOCUMENTATION OF XIB SPECIAL MISSION JULY-AUGUST 1944
August 1 Cominch to various North Atlantic Commanders
U-boat leaving Baltic (U802)
Two westbound U-boats estimated north of Azores (U1229&XIB)
August 15 Admiraly to Cominch
"LT" Special Mission? Belle Isle Strait likely
August 17 Admiralty to Cominch "LT" to America
August 18 Admiralty to Cominch "LT" heading remains open
August 21 Cominch to Admiralty
Two officers and one Propagandist from Love Easy (LE) (U1229)
Love Tare (LT) heading baffling
August 25 US Navy Cominch - Log of Attacks of U-boats
1736 hours (EST) - Series Local
"Am being attacked by aircraft" with designation "LT"
¥ August 16, 1939 French Military Intelligence hands over to British MI6 a replica of the Enigma machine hand made by Polish Intelligence
¥ September 4, 1939 Alan Turing joins Bletchley Park
¥ B-Code/Enigma declassifed 1973
¥ March 1941 German Naval Chart Overlay and Enigma key tables for February captured from trawler Krebs
¥ May 7, 1941 Weathership Mnchen captured with weather ciphers and June Enigma key tables
¥ May 9, 1941 HMS Bulldog captures U110 with Enigma cipher machine and cipher tables for April and June
¥ February 1942 Four wheel added to Naval Enigma, "Triton"
¥ Early 1942 British brief Americans on Enigma
¥ December 1942 Triton broken - Allies "read" German Naval and diplomatic wireless correspondence for the remainder of the war
¥ 1973 The Enigma breakthroughs of WW II Declassified
¥ August 20 U1229 sunk by Air attack SE Newfoundland enroute to U.S. coast. 40 crew captured plus spy Oscar Mantel.
¥ August 25 XIB sunk off Cape Cod by air attack. Lost with all hands.
¥ November -Two German spies landed on Maine coast via U-boat insertion. Special agents of the FBI capture both within 60 days.
¥ Summer 1941 Chief Petty Officer Robert Marr, U. S. Coast Guard, Shows submarine wreck to Petty Officer Ronald Baker
¥ September 1988 Ed Michaud told of Submarine wreck by tug Captain Warren LeGyte
¥ June 5, 1993 Paul Machias on behalf of Ed Michaud conducts side scan sonar search revealing vessel on Orion Shoal
¥ November 1994 E.E.&G. scan reveals unique XIB gun mounts
¥ December 27, 1994 Ed Michaud conducts exploratory dive on Orion Shoal. Confirms XIB Submarine structure and bomb blast hole. Recovers small debris / artifacts from scour channel.
¥ March 27, 1995 Trident Research & Recovery, Inc formed
¥ June 26, 1995 Trident Research awarded Admiralty Claim to submarine wreck on Orion Shoal believes to be German XIB.
¥ December 9, 1995 Second side scan sonar image obtained with superior technology (E.G.&G.). LOA, Beam determined
Wll, as they say in the states, that's all folks - what a pity this has dissappeared off the net!
by Carroll Quigley.
THE SECOND important propaganda effort of the Milner Group in the period after 1909 was The Round Table. This was part of an effort by the circle of the Milner Group to accomplish for the whole Empire what they had just done for South Africa. The leaders were Philip Kerr in London, as secretary of the London group, and Lionel Curtis throughout the world, as organizing secretary for the whole movement, but most of the members of the Kindergarten cooperated in the project. The plan of procedure was the same as that which had worked so successfully in South Africa - that is, to form local groups of influential men to agitate for imperial federation and to keep in touch with these groups by correspondence and by the circulation of a periodical. As in South Africa, the original cost of the periodical was paid by Abe Bailey. This journal, issued quarterly, was called The Round Table, and the same name was applied to the local groups.
Of these local groups, the most important by far was the one in London. In this, Kerr and Brand were the chief figures. The other local groups, also called Round Tables, were set up by Lionel Curtis and others in South Africa, in Canada, in New Zealand, in Australia, and, in a rather rudimentary fashion and somewhat later, in India.
The reasons for doing this were described by Curtis himself in 1917 in A Letter to the People of India, as follows: "We feared that South Africa might abstain from a future war with Germany, on the grounds that they had not participated in the decision to make war. . . . Confronted by this dilemma at every moment of attaining Dominion self-government, we thought it would be wise to ask people in the oldest and most experienced of all Dominions what they thought of the matter. So in 1909, Mr. Kerr and I went to Canada and persuaded Mr. Marris, who was then on leave, to accompany us. 
On this trip the three young men covered a good portion of the Dominion. One day, during a walk through the forests on the Pacific slopes of the Canadian Rockies, Marris convinced Curtis that "self government, . . . however far distant, was the only intelligible goal of British policy in India. . . . The existence of political unrest in India, far from being a reason for pessimism, was the surest sign that the British, with all their manifest failings, had not shirked their primary duty of extending Western education to India and so preparing Indians to govern themselves." "I have since looked back on this walk," wrote Curtis, "as one of the milestones of my own education. So far I had thought of self-government as a Western institution, which was and would always remain peculiar to the peoples of Europe. . . . It was from that moment that I first began to think of 'the Government of each by each and of all by all' not merely as a principle of Western life, but rather of all human life, as the goal to which all human societies must tend. It was from that moment that I began to think of the British Commonwealth as the greatest instrument ever devised for enabling that principle to be realized, not merely for the children of Europe, but for all races and kindreds and peoples and tongues. And it is for that reason that I have ceased to speak of the British Empire and called the book in which I published my views The Commonwealth of Nations."
Because of Curtis's position and future influence, this walk in Canada was important not only in his personal life but also in the future history of the British Empire. It needs only to be pointed out that India received complete self-government in 1947 and the British Commonwealth changed its name officially to Commonwealth of Nations in 1948. There can be no doubt that both of these events resulted in no small degree from the influence of Lionel Curtis and the Milner Group, in which he was a major figure.
Curtis and his friends stayed in Canada for four months. Then Curtis returned to South Africa for the closing session of the Transvaal Legislative Council, of which he was a member. He there drafted a memorandum on the whole question of imperial relations, and, on the day that the Union of South Africa came into existence, he sailed to New Zealand to set up study groups to examine the question. These groups became the Round Table Groups of New Zealand.
The memorandum was printed with blank sheets for written comments opposite the text. Each student was to note his criticisms on these blank pages. Then they were to meet in their study groups to discuss these comments, in the hope of being able to draw up joint reports, or at least majority and minority reports, on their conclusions. These reports were to be sent to Curtis, who was to compile a comprehensive report on the whole imperial problem. This comprehensive report would then be submitted to the groups in the same fashion and the resulting comments used as a basis for a final report.
Five study groups of this type were set up in New Zealand, and then five more in Australia.  The decision was made to do the same thing in Canada and in England, and this was done by Curtis, Kerr, and apparently Dove during 1910. On the trip to Canada, the missionaries carried with them a letter from Milner to his old friend Arthur J. Glazebrook, with whom he had remained in close contact throughout the years since Glazebrook went to Canada for an English bank in 1893. The Round Table in 1941, writing of Glazebrook, said, "His great political hero was his friend Lord Milner, with whom he kept up a regular correspondence." As a result of this letter from Milner, Glazebrook undertook the task of founding Round Table Groups in Canada and did this so well that he was for twenty years or more the real head of the network of Milner Group units in the Dominion. He regularly wrote the Canadian articles in The Round Table magazine. When he died, in 1940, The Round Table obituary spoke of him as "one of the most devoted and loyal friends that The Round Table has ever known. Indeed- he could fairly claim to be one of its founding fathers." In the 1930s he relinquished his central position in the Canadian branch of the Milner Group to Vincent Massey, son-in-law of George Parkin. Glazebrook's admiration for Parkin was so great that he named his son George Parkin de Twenebrokes Glazebrook. At the present time Vincent Massey and G. P. de T. Glazebrook are apparently the heads of the Milner Group organization in Canada, having inherited the position from the latter's father. Both are graduates of Balliol, Massey in 1913 and Glazebrook in 1924. Massey, a member of a very wealthy Canadian family, was lecturer in modern history at Toronto University in 1913-1915, and then served, during the war effort, as a staff officer in Canada, as associate secretary of the Canadian Cabinet's War Committee, and as secretary and director of the Government Repatriation Committee. Later he was Minister without Portfolio in the Canadian Cabinet (1924), a member of the Canadian delegation to the Imperial Conference of 1926, and first Canadian Minister to the United States (1926-1930). He was president of the National Liberal Federation of Canada in 1932-1935, Canadian High Commission in London in 1935-1946, and Canadian delegate to the Assembly of the League of Nations in 1936. He has been for a long time governor of t e University of Toronto and of Upper Canada College (Parkin's old school). He remains to this day one of the strongest supporters of Oxford University and of a policy of close Canadian cooperation with the United Kingdom.
G. P. de T. Glazebrook, son of Milner's old friend Arthur J. Glazebrook and namesake of Milner's closest collaborator in the Rhodes Trust, was born in 1900 and studied at Upper Canada College, the University of Toronto, and Balliol. Since 1924 he has been teaching history at Toronto University, but since 1942 has been on leave to the Dominion government, engaged in strategic intelligence work with the Department of External Affairs. Since 1948 he has been on loan from the Department of External Affairs to the Department of Defense, where he is acting as head of the new Joint Services Intelligence. This highly secret agency appears to be the Canadian equivalent to the American Central Intelligence Agency. Glazebrook has written a number of historical works, including a History of Transportation in Canada (1938), Canadian External Affairs, a Historical Study to 1914 (1942), and Canada at the Peace Conference (1942). .
It was, as we have said, George Parkin Glazebrook's father who, acting in cooperation with Curtis, Kerr, and Marris and on instructions from Milner, set up the Round Table organization in Canada in 1911. About a dozen units were established in various cities.
It was during the effort to extend the Round Table organization to Australia that Curtis first met Lord Chelmsford. He was later Viceroy of India (in 1916-1921), and there can be little doubt that the Milner Group was influential in this appointment, for Curtis discussed the plans which eventually became the Government of India Act of 1919 with him before he went to India and consulted with him in India on the same subject in 1916. 
From 1911 to 1913, Curtis remained in England, devoting himself to the reports coming in from the Round Table Groups on imperial organization, while Kerr devoted himself to the publication of The Round Table itself. This was an extraordinary magazine. The first issue appeared with the date 15 November 1910. It had no names in the whole issue, either of the officers or of the contributors of the five articles. The opening statement of policy was unsigned, and the only address to which communications could be sent was "The Secretary, 175 Piccadilly, London, W." This anonymity has been maintained ever since, and has been defended by the journal itself in advertisements, on the grounds that anonymity gives the contributors greater in dependence and freedom. The real reasons, however, were much more practical than this and included the fact that the writers were virtually unknown and were so few in numbers, at first at least, as to make the project appear ridiculous had the articles been signed. For example, Philip Kerr, during his editorship, always wrote the leading article in every issue. In later years the anonymity was necessary because of the political prominence of some of the contributors. In general, the policy of the journal has been such that it has continued to conceal the identity of its writers until their deaths. Even then, they have never been connected with any specific article, except in the case of one article (the first one in the first issue) by Lord Lothian. This article was reprinted in The Round Table after the author's death in 1940.
The Round Table was essentially the propaganda vehicle of a handful of people and could not have carried signed articles either originally, when they were too few, or later, when they were too famous. It was never intended to be either a popular magazine or self-supporting, but rather was aimed at influencing those in a position to influence public opinion. As Curtis wrote in 1920, "A large quarterly like The Round Table is not intended so much for the average reader, as for those who write for the average reader. It is meant to be a storehouse of information of all kinds upon which publicists can draw. Its articles must be taken on their merits and as representing nothing beyond the minds and information of the individual writer of each."
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the first article of the first issue, called "Anglo-German Rivalry," was very anti-German and forms an interesting bit of evidence when taken in connection with Curtis's statement that the problem of the Empire was raised in 1909 by the problem of what role South Africa would play in a future war with Germany. The Group, in the period before 1914, were clearly anti-German. This must be emphasized because of the mistaken idea which circulated after 1930 that the Cliveden group, especially men like Lord Lothian, were pro-German. They were neither anti-German in 1910 nor pro-German in 1938, but pro-Empire all the time, changing there their attitudes on other problems as these problems affected the Empire. And it should be realized that their love for the Empire was not mere jingoism or flag-waving (things at which Kerr mocked within the Group)7 but was based on the sincere belief that freedom, civilization, and human decency could best be advanced through the instrumentality of the British Empire.
In view of the specific and practical purpose of The Round Table-to federate the Empire in order to ensure that the Dominions would join with the United Kingdom in a future war with Germany-the paper could not help being a propagandist organ, propagandist on a high level, it is true, but nonetheless a journal of opinion rather than a journal of information. Every general article in the paper (excluding the reports from representatives in the Dominions) was really an editorial- an unsigned editorial speaking for the group as a whole. By the 1920s these articles were declaring, in true editorial style, that "The Round Table does not approve oP' something or other, or, "It seems to The Round Table that" something else.
Later the members 0 e Group denied that the Group were concerned with the propagation f any single point of view. Instead, they insisted that the purpose of th Group was to bring together persons of various points of view for purposes of self-education. This is not quite accurate. The Group did not contain persons of various points of view but rather persons of unusual unanimity of opinion, especially in regard to goals. There was a somewhat greater divergence in regard to methods, and the circulating of memoranda within the Group to evoke various comments was for the purpose of reaching some agreement on methods only-the goals being already given. In this, meetings of the Group were rather like the meetings of the British Cabinet, although any normal Cabinet would contain a greater variety of opinion than did the usual meetings of the Group. In general, an expression of opinion by anyone member of the Group sounded like an echo of any of the others. Their systems of values were identical; the position of the British Commonwealth at the apex of that system was almost axiomatic; the important role played by moral and ideological influences in the Commonwealth and in the value system was accepted by all; the necessity of strengthening the bonds of the Commonwealth in view of the approaching crisis of the civilization of the West was accepted by all; so also was the need for closer union with the United States. There was considerable divergence of opinion regarding the practicality of imperial federation in the immediate future; there was some divergence of ideas regarding the rate at which self-government should be extended to the various parts of the Empire (especially India). There was a slight difference of emphasis on the importance of relations between the Commonwealth and the United States. But none of these differences of opinion was fundamental or important. The most basic divergence within the Group during the first twenty years or so was to be found in the field of economic ideas - a field in which the Group as a whole was extremely weak, and also extremely conservative. This divergence existed, however, solely because of the extremely unorthodox character of Lord Milner's ideas. Milner's ideas (as expressed, for example, in his book Questions of the Hour, published in 1923) would have been progressive, even unorthodox, in 1935. They were naturally ahead of the times in 1923, and they were certainly far ahead of the ideas of the Group as a whole, for its economic ideas would have been old-fashioned in 1905. These ideas of the Group (until 1931, at least) were those of late-nineteenth-century international banking and financial )capitalism. The key to all economics and prosperity was considered to rest in banking and finance. With "sound money," a balanced budget, and the international gold standard, it was expected that prosperity and rising standards of living would follow automatically. These ideas were propagated through The Round Table, in the period after 1912, in a series of articles written by Brand and subsequently republished under his name, with the title War and National Finance (1921). They are directly antithetical to the ideas of Milner as revealed in his book published two years later. Milner insisted that financial questions must be subordinated to economic questions and economic questions to political questions. As a result, if a deflationary policy, initiated for financial reasons, has deleterious economic or political effects, it must be abandoned. Milner regarded the financial policy advocated by Brand in 1919 and followed by the British government for the next twelve years as a disaster, since it led to unemployment, depression, and ruination of the export trade. Instead, Milner wanted to isolate the British economy from the world economy by tariffs and other barriers and encourage the economic development of the United Kingdom by a system of government spending, self-regulated capital and labor, social welfare, etc. This program, which was based on "monopoly capitalism" or even "national socialism" rather than "financial capitalism," as Brand's was, was embraced by most of the Milner Group after September 1931, when the ending of the gold standard in Britain proved once and for all that Brand's financial program of 1919 was a complete disaster and quite unworkable. As a result, in the years after 1931 the businessmen of the Milner Group embarked on a policy of government encouragement of self-regulated monopoly capitalism. This was relatively easy for many members of the 'Group because of the distrust of economic individualism which they had inherited from Toynbee and Milner. In April 1932, when P. Horsfall, manager of Lazard Brothers Bank (a colleague of Brand), asked John Dove to write a defense of individualism in The Round Table, Dove suggested that he write it himself, but, in reporting the incident to Brand, he clearly indicated that the Group regarded individualism as obsolete. 
This difference of opinion between Milner and Brand on economic questions is not of great importance. The important matter is that Brand's opinion prevailed within the Group from 1919 to 1931, while Milner's has grown in importance from 1931 to the present. The importance of this can be seen in the fact that the financial and economic policy followed by the British government from 1919 to 1945 runs exactly parallel to the policy of the Milner Group. This is no accident but is the result, as we shall see, of the dominant position held by the Milner Group in the councils of the Conservative-Unionist party since the First World War.
During the first decade or so of its existence, The Round Table continued
to be edited and written by the inner circle of the Milner Group, chiefly
by Lothian, Brand, Hichens, Grigg, Dawson, Fisher, and Dove. Curtis was too
busy with the other activities of the Group to devote much time to the magazine
and had little to do with it until after the war. By that time a number of
others had been added to the Group, chiefly as writers of occasional articles.
Most of these were members or future members of All Souls; they include Coupland,
Zimmern, Arnold Toynbee, Arthur, Sir Maurice Hankey, and others. The same
Group that originally started the project in 1910 still controls it today,
with the normal changes caused by death or old age. The vacancies resulting
from these causes have been filled by new recruits from All Souls. It would
appear that Coupland and Brand are the most influential figures today. The
following list gives the editors of The Round Table from 1910 to the recent
Philip Kerr, 1910-1917 (assisted by E. Grigg, 1913-1915)
Reginald Coupland, 1917-1919
Lionel Curtis, 1919-1921
John Dove, 1921-1934
Henry V. Hodson, 1934-1939
Vincent Todd Harlow, (acting editor) 1938
Reginald Coupland, 1939-1941
Geoffrey Dawson, 1941-1944
Of these names, all but two are already familiar. H. V. Hodson, a recent recruit to the Milner Group, was taken from All Souls. Born in 1906, he was at Balliol for three years (1925-1928) and on graduation obtained a fellowship to All Souls, which he held for the regular term (1928-1935). This fellowship opened to him the opportunities which he had the ability to exploit. On the staff of the Economic Advisory Council from 1930 to 1931 and an important member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, he was assistant editor of The Round Table for three years (1931-1934) and became editor when Dove died in 1934. At the same time he wrote for Toynbee the economic sections of the Survey of International Affairs from 1929 on, publishing these in a modified form as a separate volume, with the title Slump and Recovery, 1929-1937, in 1938. With the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, he left The Round Table editorship and went to the Ministry of Information (which was controlled completely by the Milner Group) as director of the Empire Division. After two years in this post he was given the more critical position of Reforms Commissioner in the Government of India for two years (1941-1942) and then was made assistant secretary and later head of the non-munitions division of the Ministry of Production. This position was held until the war ended, three years later. He then returned to private life as assistant editor of /The Sunday Times. In addition to the writings already mentioned, he published The/Economics of a Changing World (1933) and The Empire in the World (1937), and edited The BritishCommonwealth and the Future (1939).
Vincent T. Harlow, born in 1898, was in the Royal Field Artillery in 1917-1919 and then went to Brasenose, where he took his degree in 1923. He was lecturer in Modern History at University College, Southampton, in 1923-1927, and then came into the magic circle of the Milner Group. He was keeper of Rhodes House Library in 1928-1938, Beit Lecturer in Imperial History in 1930-1935, and has been Rhodes Professor of Imperial History at the University of London since 1938. He was a member of the Imperial Committee of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and, during the war, was head of the Empire Information Service at the Ministry of Information. He lives near Oxford, apparently in order to keep in contact with the Group.
In the decade 1910-1920, the inner circle of the Milner Group was busy with two other important activities in addition to The Round Table magazine. These were studies of the problem of imperial federation and of the problem of extending self-government to India. Both of these were in charge of Lionel Curtis and continued with little interruption from the war itself. The Round Table, which was in charge of Kerr, never interrupted its publication, but from 1915 onward it became a secondary issue to winning the war and making the peace. The problem of imperial federation will be discussed here and in Chapter 8, the war and the peace in Chapter 7, and the problem of India in Chapter 10.
During the period 1911-1913, as we have said, Curtis was busy in England with the reports from the Round Table Groups in the Dominions in reply to his printed memorandum. At the end of 1911 and again in 1913, he printed these reports in two substantial volumes, without the names of the contributors. These volumes were never published, but a thousand copies of each were distributed to the various groups. On the basis of these reports, Curtis drafted a joint report, which was printed and circulated as each section was completed. It soon became clear that there was no real agreement within the groups and that imperial federation was not popular in the Dominions. This was a bitter pill to the Group, especially to Curtis, but he continued to work for several years more. In 1912, Milner and Kerr went to Canada and made speeches to Round Table Groups and their associates. The following year Curtis went to Canada to discuss the status of the inquiry on imperial organization with the various Round Table Groups there and summed up the results in a speech in Toronto in October 1913.  He decided to draw up four reports as follows: (a) the existing situation; (b) a system involving complete independence for the Dominions; (c) a plan to secure unity of foreign relations by each Dominion's following a policy independent from but parallel to that of Britain itself; (d) a plan to reduce the United Kingdom to a Dominion and create a new imperial government over all the Dominions. Since the last was what Curtis wanted, he decided to write that report himself and allow supporters of each of the other three to write theirs. A thousand copies of this speech were circulated among the groups throughout the world.
When the war broke out in 1914, the reports were not finished, so it was decided to print the four already sent out, with a concluding chapter. A thousand copies of this, with the title Project of a Commonwealth, were distributed among the groups. Then a popular volume on the subject, with the title The Problem of the Commonwealth and Curtis's name as editor, was published (May 1916). Two months later, the earlier work (Pro;ect) was published under the title The Commonwealth of Nations, again with Curtis named as editor. Thus appeared for the first time in public the name which the British Empire was to assume thirty-two years later. In the September 1916 issue of The Round Table, Kerr published a statement on the relation ship of the two published volumes to the Round Table Groups. Because of the paper shortage in England, Curtis in 1916 went to Canada and Australia to arrange for the separate publication of The Problem of the Commonwealth in those countries. At the same time he set up new Round Table Groups in Australia and New Zealand. Then he went to India to begin serious work on Indian reform. From this emerged the Government of India Act of 1919, as we shall see later.
By this time Curtis and the others had come to realize that any formal federation of the Empire was impossible. As Curtis wrote in 1917 (in his Letter to the People of India): "The people of the Dominions rightly aspire to control their own foreign affairs and yet retain their status as British citizens. On the other hand, they detest the idea of paying taxes to any Imperial Parliament, even to one upon which their own representatives sit. The inquiry convinced me that, unless they sent members and paid taxes to an Imperial Parliament, they could not control their foreign affairs and also remain British subjects. But I do not think that doctrine is more distasteful to them than the idea of having anything to do with the Government of India."
Reluctantly Curtis and the others postponed the idea of a federated Empire and fell back on the idea of trying to hold the Empire together by the intangible bonds of common culture and common outlook. This had originally (in Rhodes and Milner) been a supplement to the project of a federation. It now became the chief issue, and the idea of federation fell into a secondary place. At the same time, the idea of federation was swallowed up in a larger scheme for organizing the whole world within a League of Nations. This idea had also been held by Rhodes and Milner, but in quite a different form. To the older men, the world was to be united around the British Empire as a nucleus. To Curtis, the Empire was to be absorbed into a world organization. This second idea was fundamentally mystical. Curtis believed: "Die and ye shall be born again." He sincerely felt that if the British Empire died in the proper way (by spreading liberty, brotherhood, and justice), it would be born again in a higher level of existence-as a world community, or, as he called it, a "Commonwealth of Nations." It is not yet clear whether the resurrection envisaged by Curtis and his associates will occur, or whether they merely assisted at the crucifixion of the British Empire. The conduct of the new India in the next few decades will decide this question.
The idea for federation of the Empire was not original with the Round Table Group, although their writings would indicate that they sometimes thought so. The federation which they envisaged had been worked out in detail by persons close to the Cecil Bloc and was accepted by Milner and Rhodes as their own chief goal in life.
The original impetus for imperial federation arose within the Liberal Party as a reaction against the Little England doctrines that were triumphant in England before 1868. The original movement came from men like John Stuart Mill (whose arguments in support of the Empire are just like Curtis's) and Earl Grey (who was Colonial Secretary under Russell in 1846-1852). 
This movement resulted in the founding of the Royal Colonial Society (now Royal Empire Society) in 1868 and, as a kind of subsidiary of this, the Imperial Federation League in 1884. Many Unionist members of the Cecil Bloc, such as Brassey and Goschen, were in these organizations. In 1875 F. P. Labilliere, a moving power in both organizations, read a paper before the older one on "The Permanent Unity of the Empire" and suggested a solution of the imperial problem by creating a superimposed imperial legislative body and a central executive over the whole Empire, including the United Kingdom. Seven years later, in "The Political Organization of the Empire," he divided authority between this new federal authority and the Dominions by dividing the business of government into imperial questions, local questions, and questions concerning both levels. He then enumerated the matters that would be allotted to each division, on a basis very similar to that later advocated by Curtis. Another speaker, George Bourinot, in 1880, dealt with "The Natural Development of Canada" in a fashion that sounds exactly like Curtis. 
These ideas and projects were embraced by Milner as his chief purpose in life until, like Curtis, he came to realize their impracticality.12 Milner's ideas can be found in his speeches and letters, especially in two letters of 1901 to Brassey and Parkin. Brassey had started a campaign for imperial federation accompanied by devolution (that is, granting local issues to local bodies even within the United Kingdom) and the creation of an imperial parliament to include representatives of the colonies. This imperial parliament would deal with imperial questions, while local parliaments would deal with local questions. In pursuit of this project, Brassey published a pamphlet, in December 1900, called A Policy on Which All Liberals May Unite and sent to Milner an invitation to join him. Milner accepted in February 1901, saying:
There are probably no two men who are more fully agreed in their general view of Imperial policy [than we]. . . . It is clear to me that we require separate organs to deal with local home business and with Imperial business. The attempt to conduct both through one so-called Imperial Parliament is breaking down. . . . Granted that we must have separate Parliaments for Imperial and Local business, I have been coming by a different road, and for somewhat different reasons, to the conclusion which you also are heading for, viz: that it would be better not to create a new body over the so-called Imperial Parliament, but. . . to create new bodies, or a new body under it for the local business of Great Britain and Ireland, leaving it to deal with the wider questions of Foreign Policy, the Defence of the Empire, and the relations of the several parts. In that case, of course, the colonies would have to be represented in the Imperial Parliament, which would thus become really Imperial. One great difficulty, no doubt, is that, if this body were to be really effective as an instrument of Imperial Policy, it would require to be reduced in numbers. . . . The reduction in numbers of British members might no doubt be facilitated by the creation of local legislatures. . . . The time is ripe to make a beginning. . . . I wish Rosebery, who could carry through such a policy if any man could, was less pessimistic.
The idea of devolving the local business of the imperial parliament upon local legislative bodies for Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland was advocated in a book by Lord Esher called After the War and in a book called The Great Opportunity by Edward Wood (the future Lord Halifax). These books, in their main theme, were nothing more than a restatement of this aspect of the imperial federation project. They were accompanied, on 4 June 1919, by a motion introduced in the House of Commons by Wood, and carried by a vote of 187 to 34, that "the time has come for the creation of subordinate legislatures within the United Kingdom." Nothing came of this motion, just as nothing came of the federation plans.
Milner's ideas on the latter subject were restated in a letter to Parkin on 18 September 1901:
The existing Parliaments, whether British or Colonial, are too small, and so are the statesmen they produce (except in accidental cases like Chamberlain), for such big issues. Until we get a real Imperial Council, not merely a Consultative, but first a Constitutional, and then an Executive Council with control of all our world business, we shall get nothing. Look at the way in which the splendid opportunities for federal defence which this war afforded, have been thrown away. I believe it will come about, but at present I do not see the man to do it. Both you and I could help him enormously, almost decisively indeed, for I have, and doubtless you have, an amount of illustration and argument to bring to bear on the subject, drawn from practical experience, which would logically smash the opposition. Our difficulty in the old days was that we were advocating a grand, but, as it seemed, an impractical idea. I should advocate the same thing today as an urgent practical necessity. 
The failure of imperial federation in the period 1910-1917 forced Parkin and Milner to fall back on ideological unity as achieved through the Rhodes Scholarships, just as the same event forced Curtis and others to fall back on the same goal as achieved through the Royal Institute of International Affairs. All parties did this with reluctance. As Dove wrote to Brand in 1923, "This later thing [the RIIA] is all right-it may help us to reach that unity of direction in foreign policy we are looking for, if it becomes a haunt of visitors from the Dominions; but Lionel's first love has still to be won, and if, as often happens, accomplishment lessens appetite, and he turns again to his earlier and greater work, we shall all be the gainers."
This shift from institutional to ideological bonds for uniting the Empire makes it necessary that we should have a clear idea of the outlook of The Round Table and the whole Milner Group. This outlook was well stated in an article in Volume III of that journal, from the pen of an unidentified writer. This article, entitled "The Ethics of Empire," is deserving of close attention. It emphasized that the arguments for the Empire and the bonds which bind it together must be moral and not based on considerations of material advantage or even of defense. This emphasis on moral considerations, rather than economic or strategic, is typical of the Group as a whole and is found in Milner and even in Rhodes. Professional politicians, bureaucrats, utilitarians, and materialist social reformers are criticized for their failure to "appeal convincingly as an ideal of moral welfare to the ardour and imagination of a democratic people." They are also criticized for failure to see that this is the basis on which the Empire was reared.
The development of the British Empire teaches how moral conviction and devotion to duty have inspired the building of the structure. Opponents of Imperialism are wont to suggest that the story will not bear inspection, that it is largely a record of self-aggrandizement and greed. Such a charge betrays ignorance of its history. . . . The men who have laboured most enduringly at the fabric of Empire were not getters of wealth and plunderers of spoil. It was due to their strength of character and moral purpose that British rule in India and Egypt has become the embodiment of order and justice. . . . Duty is an I bstract term, but the facts it signifies are the most concrete and real in our experience. The essential thing is to grasp its meaning as a motive power in men's lives. [This was probably from Kerr, but could have been Toynbee or Milner speaking. The writer continued:] The end of the State is to make men, and its strength is measured not in terms of defensive armaments or economic prosperity but by the moral personality of its citizens. . . . The function of the State is positive and ethical, to secure for its individual members that they shall not merely live but live well. Social reformers are prone to insist too strongly on an ideal of material comfort for the people. . . . A life of satisfaction depends not on higher wages or lower prices or on leisure for recreation, but on work that calls into play the higher capacities of man's nature. . . . The cry of the masses should be not for wages or comforts or even liberty, but for opportunities for enterprise and responsibility. A policy for closer union in the Empire is full of significance in relation to this demand. . . . There is but one way of promise. It is that the peoples of the Empire shall realize their national unity and draw from that ideal an inspiration to common endeavour in the fulfilment of the moral obligations which their membership of the Empire entails. The recognition of common Imperial interests is bound to broaden both their basis of public action and their whole view of life. Public life is ennobled by great causes and by these alone. . . . Political corruption, place-hunting, and party intrigue have their natural home in small communities where attention is concentrated upon local interests. Great public causes call into being the intellectual and moral potentialities of people. . . . The phrases "national character," "national will," and "national personality" are no empty catchwords. Everyone knows that esprit de corps is not a fiction but a reality; that the spirit animating a college or a regiment is something that cannot be measured in terms of the private contributions of the individual members. . . . The people of the Empire are face to face with a unique and an historic opportunity I It is their mission to base the policy of a Great Empire on the foundations of freedom and law. . . . It remains for them to crown the structure by the institution of a political union that shall give solidarity to the Empire as a whole. Duty and the logic of facts alike point this goal of their endeavour.
In this article can be found, at least implicitly, all the basic ideas of the Milner Group: their suspicion of party politics; their emphasis on moral qualities and the cement of common outlook for linking people together; their conviction that the British Empire is the supreme moral achievement of man, but an achievement yet incomplete and still unfolding; their idea that the highest moral goals are the development of personality through devotion to duty and service under freedom and law; their neglect, even scorn, for economic considerations; and their feeling for the urgent need to persuade others to accept their point of view in order to allow the Empire to achieve the destiny for which they yearn .
The Milner Group is a standing refutation of the Marxist or Leninist interpretations of history or of imperialism. Its members were motivated only slightly by materialistic incentives, and their imperialism was motivated not at all by the desire to preserve or extend capitalism. On the contrary their economic ideology, in the early stages at least, was more socialistic than Manchester in its orientation. To be sure, it was an undemocratic kind of socialism, which was willing to make many sacrifices to the well-being of the masses of the people but reluctant to share with these masses political power that might allow them to seek their own well-being. This socialistic leaning was more evident in the earlier (or Balliol) period than in the later (or New College) period, and disappeared almost completely when Lothian and Brand replaced Esher, Grey, and Milner at the center of the Group. Esher regarded the destruction of the middle class as inevitable and felt that the future belonged to the workers and an administrative state. He dedicated his book After the War (1919) to Robert Smillie, President of the Miners' Federation, and wrote him a long letter on 5 May 1919. On 12 September of the same year, he wrote to his son, the present Viscount Esher: "There are things that cannot be confiscated by the Smillies and Sidney Webbs. These seem to me the real objectives." Even earlier, Arnold Toynbee was a socialist of sorts and highly critical of the current ideology of liberal capitalism as proclaimed by the high priests of the Manchester School. Milner gave six lectures on socialism in Whitechapel in 1882 (published in 1931 in The National Review). Both Toynbee and Milner worked intermittently at social service of a mildly socialistic kind, an effort that resulted in the founding of Toynbee Hall as a settlement house in 1884. As chairman of the board of Internal Revenue in 1892-1897, Milner drew up Sir William Harcourt's budget, which inaugurated the inheritance tax. In South Africa, he was never moved by capitalistic motives, placing a heavy profits tax on the output of the Rand mines to finance social improvements, and considering with objective calm the question of nationalizing the railroads or even the mines. Both Toynbee and Milner were early suspicious of the virtues of free trade - not, however, because tariffs could provide high profits for industrial concerns but because tariffs and imperial preference could link the Empire more closely into economic unity. In his later years, Milner became increasingly radical, a development that did not fit any too well with the conservative financial outlook of Brand, or even Hichens. As revealed in his book Questions of the Hour (1923), Milner was a combination of technocrat and guild socialist and objected vigorously to the orthodox financial policy of deflation, balanced budget, gold standard, and free international exchange advocated by the Group after 1918. This orthodox policy, inspired by Brand and accepted by The Round Table after 1918, was regarded by Milner as an invitation to depression, unemployment, and the dissipation of Britain's material and moral resources. On this point there can be no doubt that Milner was correct. Not himself a trained economist, Milner, nevertheless, saw that the real problems were of a technical and material nature and that Britain's ability to produce goods should be limited only by the real supply of knowledge, labor, energy, and materials and not by the artificial limitations of a deliberately restricted supply of money and credit. This point of view of Milner's was not accepted by the Group until after 1931, and not as completely as by Milner even then. The point of view of the Group, at least in the period 1918-1931, was the point of view of the international bankers with whom Brand, Hichens, and others were so closely connected. This point of view, which believed that Britain's prewar financial supremacy could be restored merely by reestablishing the prewar financial system, with the pound sterling at its prewar parity, failed completely to see the changed conditions that made all efforts to restore the prewar system impossible. The Group's point of view is clearly revealed in The Round Table articles of the period. In the issue of December 1918, Brand advocated the financial policy which the British government followed, with such disastrous results, for the next thirteen years. He wrote:
That nation will recover quickest after the war which corrects soonest any depreciation in currency, reduces by production and saving its inflated credit, brings down its level of prices, and restores the free import and export of gold. . . . With all our wealth of financial knowledge and experience behind us it should be easy for us to steer the right path - though it will not be always a pleasant one- amongst the dangers of the future. Every consideration leads to the view that the restoration of the gold standard-whether or not it can be achieved quickly-should be our aim. Only by that means can we be secure that our level of prices shall be as low as or lower than prices in other countries, and on that condition depends the recovery of our export trade and the prevention of excessive imports. Only by that means can we provide against and abolish the depreciation of our currency which, though the [existing] prohibition against dealings in gold prevents our measuring it, almost certainly exists, and safeguard ourself against excessive grants of credit.
He then outlined a detailed program to contract credit, curtail government spending, raise taxes, curtail imports, increase exports, etc. Hichens, who, as an industrialist rather than a banker, was not nearly so conservative in financial matters as Brand, suggested that the huge public debt of 1919 be met by a capital levy, but, when Brand's policies were adopted by the government, Hichens went along with them and sought a way out for his own business by reducing costs by "rationalization of production."
These differences of opinion on economic matters within the Group did not disrupt the Group, because it was founded on political rather than economic ideas and its roots were to be found in ancient Athens rather than in modern Manchester. The Balliol generation, from Jowett and Nettleship, and the New College generation, from Zimmern, obtained an idealistic picture of classical Greece which left them nostalgic for the fifth century of Hellenism and drove them to seek to reestablish that ancient fellowship of intellect and patriotism in modern Britain. The funeral oration of Pericles became their political covenant with destiny. Duty to the state and loyalty to one's fellow citizens became the chief values of life. But, realizing that the jewel of Hellenism was destroyed by its inability to organize any political unit larger than a single city, the Milner Group saw the necessity of political organization in order to insure the continued existence of freedom and higher ethical values and hoped to be able to preserve the values of their day by organizing the whole world around the British Empire.
Curtis puts this quite clearly in The Commonwealth of Nations (1916), where he says:
States, whether autocracies or commonwealths, ultimately rest on duty, not on self-interest or force. . . . The quickening principle of a state is a sense of devotion, an adequate recognition somewhere in the minds of its subjects that their own interests are subordinate to those of the state. The bond which unites them and constitutes them collectively as a state is, to use the words of Lincoln, in the nature of dedication. Its validity, like that of the marriage tie, is at root not contractual but sacramental. Its foundation is not self-interest, but rather some sense of obligation, however conceived, which is strong enough to over-master self-interest.
History for this Group, and especially for Curtis, presented itself as an age-long struggle between the principles of autocracy and the principles of commonwealth, between the forces of darkness and the forces of light, between Asiatic theocracy and European freedom. This view of history, founded on the work of Zimmern, E. A. Freeman, Lord Bryce, and A. V. Dicey, felt that the distinguishing mark between the two hosts could be found in their views of law - the forces of light regarding law as manmade and mutable, but yet above all men, while the forces of darkness regarded law as divine and eternal, yet subordinate to the king. The one permitted diversity, growth, and freedom, while the other engendered monotony, stultification, and slavery. The struggle between the two had gone on for thousands of years, spawning such offspring as the Persian Wars, the Punic Wars, and the struggles of Britain with the forces of Philip II, of Louis XIV, of Napoleon, and of Wilhelm II. Thus, to this Group, Britain stood as the defender of all that was fine or civilized in the modern world, just as Athens had stood for the same values in the ancient world. 17 Britain's mission, under this interpretation, was to carry freedom and light (that is, the principles of commonwealth) against the forces of theocracy and darkness (that is, autocracy) in Asia - and even in Central Europe. For this Group regarded the failure of France or Germany to utilize the English idea of "supremacy of law" (as described by Dicey in his The Law of the Constitution, 1885) as proof that these countries were still immersed, at least partially, in the darkness of theocratic law. The slow spread of English political institutions to Europe as well as Asia in the period before the First World War was regarded by the Group as proof both of their superiority and of the possibility of progress. In Asia and America, at least, England's civilizing mission was to be carried out by force, if necessary, for "the function of force is to give moral ideas time to take root." Asia thus could be compelled to accept civilization, a procedure justifiable to the Group on the grounds that Asians are obviously better off under European rule than under the rule of fellow Asians and, if consulted, would clearly prefer British rule to that of any other European power. To be sure, the blessings to be extended to the less fortunate peoples of the world did not include democracy. To Milner, to Curtis, and apparently to most members of the Group, democracy was not an unmixed good, or even a good, and far inferior to rule by the best, or, as Curtis says, by those who "have some intellectual capacity for judging the public interest, and, what is no less important, some moral capacity for treating it as paramount to their own."
This disdain for unrestricted democracy was quite in accordance with the ideas revealed by Milner's activities in South Africa and with the Greek ideals absorbed at Balliol or New College. However, the restrictions on democracy accepted by the Milner Group were of a temporary character, based on the lack of education and background of those who were excluded from political participation. It was not a question of blood or birth, for these men were not racists.
This last point is important because of the widespread misconception that these people were racially intolerant. They never were; certainly those of the inner circle never were. On the contrary, they were ardent advocates of a policy of education and uplift of all groups, so that ultimately all groups could share in political life and in the rich benefits of the British way of life. To be sure, the members of the Group did not advocate the immediate extension of democracy and self-government to all peoples within the Empire, but these restrictions were based not on color of skin or birth but upon cultural outlook and educational background. Even Rhodes, who is widely regarded as a racist because his scholarships were restricted to candidates from the Nordic countries, was not a racist. He restricted his scholarships to these countries because he felt that they had a background sufficiently homogeneous to allow the hope that educational interchange could link them together to form the core of the worldwide system which he hoped would ultimately come into existence. Beyond this, Rhodes insisted that there must be no restrictions placed on the scholarships on a basis of race, religion, skin color, or national origin.  In his ownlife, Rhodes cared nothing about these things. Some of his closest friends were Jews (like Beit), and in three of his wills he left Lord Rothschild as his trustee, in one as his sole trustee. Milner and the other members felt similarly. Lionel Curtis, in his writings, makes perfectly clear both his conviction that character is acquired by training rather than innate ability and his insistence on tolerance in personal contact between members of different races. In his The Commonwealth of Nations (1916) he says: "English success in planting North America and the comparative failure of their rivals must, in fact, be traced to the respective merits not of breed but of institutions"; and again: "The energy and intelligence which had saved Hellas [in the Persian Wars] was the product of her free institutions." In another work he protests against English mistreatment of natives in India and states emphatically that it must be ended. He says: "The conduct on the part of Europeans. . . is more than anything else the root cause of Indian unrest. . . I am strongly of opinion that governors should be vested with powers to investigate judicially cases where Europeans are alleged to have outraged Indian feelings. Wherever a case of wanton and unprovoked insult such as those I have cited is proved, government should have the power to order the culprit to leave the country. . . . A few deportations would soon effect a definite change for the better." That Dove felt similarly is clear from his letters to Brand.
Without a belief in racism, it was perfectly possible for this Group to believe, as they did, in the ultimate extension of freedom and self government to all parts of the Empire. To be sure, they believed that this was a path to be followed slowly, but their reluctance was measured by the inability of "backward" peoples to understand the principles of a commonwealth, not by reluctance to extend to them either democracy or self-government.
Curtis defined the distinction between a commonwealth and a despotism in the following terms: "The rule of law as contrasted with the rule of an individual is the distinguishing mark of a commonwealth. In despotism government rests on the authority of the ruler or of the invisible and uncontrollable power behind him. In a commonwealth rulers derive their authority from the law and the law from a public opinion which is competent to change it." Accordingly, "the institutions of a commonwealth cannot be successfully worked by peoples whose ideas are still those of a theocratic or patriarchal society. The premature extension of representative institutions throughout the Empire would be the shortest road to anarchy." The people must first be trained to understand and practice the chief principles of commonwealth, namely the supremacy of law and the subjection of the motives of self-interest and material gain to the sense of duty to the interests of the community as a whole. Curtis felt that such an educational process was not only morally necessary on the part of Britain but was a practical necessity, since the British could not expect to keep 430 million persons in subjection forever but must rather hope to educate them up to a level where they could appreciate and cherish British ideals. In one book he says: "The idea that the principle of the commonwealth implies universal suffrage betrays an ignorance of its real nature. That principle simply means that government rests on the duty of the citizens to each other, and is to be vested in those who are capable of setting public interest before their own."  In another work he says: "As sure as day follows the night, the time will come when they [the Dominions] will have to assume the burden of the whole of their affairs. For men who are fit for it, self-government is a question not of privilege but rather of obligation. It is duty, not interest, which impels men to freedom, and duty, not interest, is the factor which turns the scale in human affairs." India is included in this evolutionary process, for Curtis wrote: " A despotic government might long have closed India to Western ideas. But a commonwealth is a living thing. It cannot suffer any part of itself to remain inert. To live it must move, and move in every limb. . . . Under British rule Western ideas will continue to penetrate and disturb Oriental society, and whether the new spirit ends in anarchy or leads to the establishment of a higher order depends upon how far the millions of India can be raised to a fuller and more rational conception of the ultimate foundations upon which the duty of obedience to government rests."
These ideas were not Curtis's own, although he was, perhaps, the most prolific, most eloquent, and most intense in his feelings. They were apparently shared by the whole inner circle of the Group. Dove, writing to Brand from India in 1919, is favorable to reform and says: "Lionel is right. You can't dam a world current. There is, I am convinced, 'purpose' under such things. All that we can do is to try to turn the flood into the best channel." In the same letter he said: "Unity will, in the end, have to be got in some other way. . . . Love-call it, if you like, by a longer name-is the only thing that can make our post-war world go round, and it has, I believe, something to say here too. The future of the Empire seems to me to depend on how far we are able to recognize this. Our trouble is that we start some way behind scratch. Indians must always find it hard to understand us." And the future Lord Lothian, ordering an article on India for The Round Table from a representative in India, wrote: "We want an article in The Round Table and I suggest to you that the main conclusion which the reader should draw from it should be that the responsibility rests upon him of seeing that the Indian demands are sympathetically handled without delay after the war. "
What this Group feared was that the British Empire would fail to profit from the lessons they had discerned in the Athenian empire or in the American Revolution. Zimmern had pointed out to them the sharp contrast between the high idealism of Pericles's funeral oration and the crass tyranny of the Athenian empire. They feared that the British Empire might fall into the same difficulty and destroy British idealism and British liberties by the tyranny necessary to hold on to a reluctant Empire. And any effort to hold an empire by tyranny they regarded as doomed to failure. Britain would be destroyed, as Athens was destroyed, by powers more tyrannical than herself. And, still drawing parallels with ancient Greece, the Group feared that all culture and civilization would go down to destruction because of our inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the national state, just as Greek culture and civilization in the fourth century B.C. went down to destruction because of the Greeks' inability to construct some kind of political unit larger than the city-state. This was the fear that had animated Rhodes, and it was the same fear that was driving the Milner Group to transform the British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations and then place that system within a League of Nations. In 1917, Curtis wrote in his Letter to the People of India: "The world is in throes which precede creation or death. Our whole race has outgrown the merely national state, and as surely as day follows night or night the day, will pass either to a Commonwealth of Nations or else an empire of slaves. And the issue of these agonies rests with us."
At the same time the example of the American Revolution showed the Group the dangers of trying to rule the Empire from London: to tax without representation could only lead to disruption. Yet it was no longer possible that 45 million in the United Kingdom could tax them selves for the defense of 435 million in the British Empire. What, then, was the solution? The Milner Group's efforts to answer this question led eventually, as we shall see in Chapter 8, to the present Commonwealth of Nations, but before we leave The Round Table, a few words should be said about Lord Milner's personal connection with the Round Table Group and the Group's other connections in the field of journalism and publicity.
Milner was the creator of the Round Table Group (since this is but another name for the Kindergarten) and remained in close personal contact with it for the rest of his life. In the sketch of Milner in the Dictionary of National Biography, written by Basil Williams of the Kindergarten, we read: "He was always ready to discuss national questions on a non-party basis, joining with former members of his South African 'Kindergarten' in their 'moot,' from which originated the political review, The Round Table, and in a more heterogeneous society, the 'Coefficients,' where he discussed social and imperial problems with such curiously assorted members as L. S. Amery, H. G. Wells, (Lord) Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, (Sir) Michael Sadler, Bernard Shaw, J. L. Garvin, William Pember Reeves, and W. A. S. Hewins." In the obituary of Hichens, as already indicated, we find in reference to the Round Table the sentence: "Often at its head sat the old masters of the Kindergarten, Lord Milner and his successor, Lord Selborne, close friends and allies of Hichens to the end." And in the obituary of Lord Milner in The Round Table for June 1925, we find the following significant passage:
The founders and the editors of The Round Table mourn in a very special sense the death of Lord Milner. For with him they have lost not only a much beloved friend, but one whom they have always regarded as their leader. Most of them had the great good fortune to serve under him in South Africa during or after the South African war, and to learn at firsthand from him something of the great ideals which inspired him. From those days at the very beginning of this century right up to the present time, through the days of Crown Colony Government in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, of the making of the South African constitution, and through all the varied and momentous history of the British Empire in the succeeding fifteen years, they have had the advantage of Lord Milner's counsel and guidance, and they are grateful to think that, though at times he disagreed with them, he never ceased to regard himself as the leader to whom, above everyone else, they looked. It is of melancholy interest to recall that Lord Milner had undertaken to come on May 13, the very day of his death, to a meeting specially to discuss with them South African problems.
The Round Table was published during the Second World War from Rhodes House, Oxford, which is but one more indication of the way in which the various instruments of the Milner Group are able to cooperate with one another.
The Times and The Round Table are not the only publications which have been controlled by the Milner Group. At various times in the past, the Group has been very influential on the staffs of the Quarterly Review, The Nineteenth Century and After, The Economist, and the Spectator. Anyone familiar with these publications will realize that most of them, for most of the time, have been quite secretive as to the names of the members of their staffs or even as to the names of their editors. The extent of the Milner Group's influence and the periods during which it was active cannot be examined here.
The Milner Group was also very influential in an editorial fashion in regard to a series of excellent and moderately priced volumes known as The Home University Library. Any glance at the complete list of volumes in this series will reveal that a large number of the names are those of persons mentioned in this study. The influence of the Group on The Home University Library was chiefly exercised through H. A. L. Fisher, a member of the inner circle of the Group, but the influence, apparently, has survived his death in 1940.
The Milner Group also attempted, at the beginning at least, to use Milner's old connections with adult education and working-class schools (a connection derived from Toynbee and Samuel Barnett) to propagate its imperial doctrines. As A. L. Smith, the Master of Balliol, put it in 1915, "We must educate our masters." In this connection, several members of the Round Table Group played an active role in the Oxford Summer School for Working Class Students in 1913. This was so successful (especially a lecture on the Empire by Curtis) that a two week conference was held early in the summer of 1914, "addressed by members of the Round Table Group, and others, on Imperial and Foreign Problems" (to quote A. L. Smith again). As a result, a plan was drawn up on 30 July 1914 to present similar programs in the 110 tutorial classes existing in industrial centers. The outbreak of war prevented most of this program from being carried out. After the war ended, the propaganda work among the British working classes became less important, for various reasons, of which the chief were that working-class ears were increasingly monopolized by Labour Party speakers and that the Round Table Group were busy with other problems like the League of Nations, Ireland, and the United States. 
If you need the references then you'll have to buy the book! - which is presently easy online - ed.
Main Bilderberger page
The site Index