TRAGEDY AND HOPE Chapter 5-6 Analysis 
* Turmel analysis has indented paragraphs, Quigley's text does not. 
* R&R = Rothschilds and Rockefellers
Page 249
Four chief reasons have been given for the intervention of the 
United States in World War I.
1) to secure "freedom of the seas" from German submarine attacks;
2)British propaganda;
3) a conspiracy by international bankers and munitions manufacturers 
either to protect their loans to the Entente Powers or their wartime 
profits from sales to these Powers;
4) Balance of Power principles to prevent Great Britain from being 
defeated by Germany
     JCT: Wow! Name me one other historian who has had the nerve to 
cite the conspiracy by international bankers and munitions 
manufacturers to protect their loans and sales to the Entente Powers. 
Surely given this reason jives with the reasons for most of the other 
wars in our history must imply that fulfilling the wishes of the 
moneylenders to profit from the carnage is far more important than the 
other three possible reasons given. 
     As we'll soon see, reason #1 was a red herring since the British 
were as much of a threat to the freedom of the seas as the Germans 
     Reason #2 is certainly valid though I'd call it more a tactic 
than a cause. The bankers and munitions makers in a hurry to get their 
nations into the bloodletting controlled the British propaganda that 
was used to enflame British and American sheeple to clamor for war. If 
ever you delve deeper into the service records of the sons of 
bankers, you'll notice that they invariably serve as majors and 
colonels in military inteligence. The back-room bankers always seem 
to serve in back-room activity. So it's no wonder that the press owned 
by the bankers who wanted the war created the public opinion wanting 
war. And let's never forget that the media do not poll the public 
opinion, they create it. I think Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is  
one of the best books available on how the elite control the media in 
favor of the war-making proclivities. Unfortunately, the guys who 
promote all these wars and their children never seem to be in the 
front lines. Oh if only those who lobby for war could be put in the 
front lines, there would be far fewer wars.
Page 250
The fact that German submarines were acting in retaliation for 
the illegal British blockades of the continent of Europe and British 
violations of international law and neutral rights on the high seas.
     JCT: Aha, so the "protection of the seas" was a red herring since 
there would have been no such need for protection had the British not 
been involved in an illegal blockade. Of course, the Versailles Treaty 
forced the Germans to accept all the blame for the war but this 
certainly does imply that the illegal British blockade had some effect 
in forcing the Germans to retaliate. 
Britain was close to defeat in April 1917 and on that basis the 
United States entered the war. The unconscious assumption by American 
leaders that an Entente victory was inevitable was at the bottom of 
their failure to enforce the same rules of neutrality and 
international law against Britain as against Germany. They constantly 
assumed that British violations of these rules could be compensated 
with monetary damages while German violations of these rules 
must be resisted by force if necessary. 
     JCT: Let us not forget that President Wilson was always in favor 
of getting American boys involved in the foreign war as he campaigned 
for the presidency on his campaign promise "not to send your boys to 
any foreign wars." I'm always amazed when these kinds of Big Lies get 
forgotten by historians and that's the reason I have to mention them. 
When world leaders like Wilson state bald-faced lies, there must be a 
very interesting underlying reason. 
Since they could not admit this unconscious assumption or publicly 
defend the legitimate basis of international power politics on which 
it rested, they finally went to war on an excuse which was legally 
weak, "the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which 
Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent 
merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to  
reason and to settled law and no other professed neutral advanced 
     JCT: So Quigley does point out that the reason given for the 
American intervention in the first world war was a false pretext. 
What's interesting is that so many great American wars were based on 
false pretexts:
     1) Spain was falsely blamed for the sinking of the Maine in 
Havana Harbor as pretext for the Spanish American war;
     2) The sinking of the munitions ship Lusitania and these other 
reasons as pretext for the First World war as well as false 
allegations of the Germans bayonetting babies;
     3) Ignoring code-breakers who informed Roosevelt of the Japanese 
approaching Pearl Harbor for the Second World War;
     4) False PT boat attacks on destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin as 
pretext for the Vietnam war;
     5) False allegations that Khadafi disco bombing of US servicemen 
as pretext to bomb Khadafi's daughter; I don't believe US allegations 
about the Lockerbie bombing either as recent stories indicate they 
don't have much of a case other than having convinced the UN to apply 
     6) False allegations of Iraqis killing the incubator babies in 
Kuwait made by a Kuwaiti princess disguised as a nurse by a public 
relations firm for the Iraqi war. 
     7) Bombing the Sudan factory on the false allegation that it was 
making chemical weapons, recently disproved, though no apology for 
those killed. 
     It's sad to say that you can't believe anything the American 
administration ever says about someone they have labelled an enemy. 
They seem to make great use of the "killing babies" allegations and 
the American public seems to swallow it every time. 
The Germans at first tried to use the established rules of 
international law regarding destruction of merchant vessels. This 
proved so dangerous because the British instructions to merchant ships 
to attack submarines. American protests reached a peak when the 
Lusitania was sunk in 1915. The Lusitania was a British merchant 
vessel constructed as an auxiliary cruiser carrying a cargo of 2,400 
cases of rifle cartridges and 1250 cases of shrapnel with orders to 
attack German submarines whenever possible. The incompetence of the 
acting captain contributed to the heavy loss of life as did also a 
mysterious second explosion after the German torpedo struck. The 
captain was on course he had orders to avoid; he was running at 
reduced speed, he had an inexperienced  crew; the portholes had been 
left open; the lifeboats had not been swung out; and no  lifeboat 
drills had been held. 
     JCT: Just like the Maine, they had a mysterious explosion and 
everything seems to indicate that the Lusitania was sent into 
dangerous waters in the hopes of being torpedoed with no concern for 
the loss of life. After all, if Roosevelt didn't kind having a couple 
of thousand American boys killed at Pearl Harbor to get them into the 
war after promising like Wilson not to send them to war, why wouldn't 
we believe that Wilson didn't mind having a thousand American tourists 
killed on the Lusitania to get the US into the war after promising not 
to send their boys to war. 
Page 251
The propaganda agencies of the Entente Powers made full use of the 
occasion. The Times of London announced that 80% were citizens of 
the US (actually 15.6%); the British manufactured and distributed a 
medal which they pretended had been awarded to the submarine crew by 
the German government; a French paper published a picture of the 
crowds in Berlin at the outbreak of war in 1914 as a picture of 
Germans "rejoicing" at the news of the sinking of the Lusitania.
     JCT: And of course, I must remind you that the propaganda 
agencies were owned and operated by the bankers and munitions makers 
who wanted their neighbors kids to join in the slaughter that would  
prove to profitable to them. With Rothschild media on one side of the 
Atlantic and Rockefeller media on the other side both clamoring for 
war and publishing false pretexts for it, is it any wonder that the 
American people went from a majority not wanting to get involved to a 
majority wanting to get involved virtually overnight. Who can blame 
them when they assume that their media have checked the facts they 
are not in a position to check themselves and when they can't believe 
that some men would want to foment wars purely from a business profit 
point of view. 
The US protested violently against the submarine warfare while 
brushing aside German arguments based on the British blockade. It was 
so irreconcilable in these protests that Germany sent Wilson a note 
which promised that "in the future merchant vessels within and without 
the war zone shall not be sunk without warning and without 
safeguarding human lives unless these ships try to escape or offer 
resistance. In return, the German government hoped that the US would 
put pressure on Britain to follow the established rules of 
international law in regard to blockade and freedom of the sea. Wilson 
refused to do so. It became clear to the Germans that they would be 
starved into defeat unless they could defeat Britain first by  
unrestricted submarine warfare. Since they were aware this would 
probably bring the US into the war against them, they made another 
effort to negotiate peace before resorting to it. It was rejected by 
the Entente Powers on Dec. 27 and unrestricted submarine attacks were 
resumed. Wilson broke off diplomatic relations and the Congress 
declared war on April 3, 1917.
     JCT: So the British were breaking the rules of war and when the 
Germans fought back in the only way they could, it was blown up in the 
media to be a cause of involvement. 
     This ignoring the violations of one side while being critical of 
the other side is not a new tactic. We'll see it being employed over  
and over in upcoming wars. 
     I myself therefore would assign blame on the illegal British 
blockade as the true cause of the U-boat attacks, something that most 
people aren't even aware of since most history books don't mention it. 
In every historical piece on the first world war, Quigley's books is 
the first time that I have ever heard that the Germans U-boat attacks 
were in retaliation for being starved by an illegal British blockade. 
All historical accounts simply lay the blame on German 
bloodthirsiness. Also, the fact that the German Government took out 
ads in New York papers warning people that the Lusitania was carrying 
munitions and might be attacked for that reason never seem to make the 
     The point is that the back-room boys wanted an incident for war 
and the best kinds of incidents needed dead people. And in all the 
cases listed above, they got the dead people just as planned. 
Page 252
Britain was unwilling to accept any peace which would leave Germany 
supreme on the continent or in a position to resume the commercial, 
naval, and colonial rivalry which had existed before 1914.
     JCT: So Britain insisted on sending millions of its boys to their 
deaths even though most Britons didn't benefit by their intransigence, 
only the bankers who financed and profited by the butchery.  
Page 253
The Vatican, working through Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius 
XII) sought a negotiated peace. 
On Oct 5, a German note to Wilson asked for an armistice based on the 
basis of the Fourteen Points which promised the end of secret 
diplomacy, freedom of the seas; freedom of commerce; disarmament; a 
fair settlement of colonial claims, with the interests of the native 
peoples receiving equal weight with the titles of the Imperialist 
Powers; the evacuation of Russia, the evacuation and restoration 
of Belgium, the evacuation of France and the restoration of her 
Alsace-Lorraine as in 1870.
     JCT: Again, no one benefitted by the refusal to make an early 
peace except Rothschild and Rockefeller banking and munitions 
Page 254
The Entente Supreme War Council refused to accept the Fourteen Points 
as the basis for peace until Colonel House threatened that the US 
would make a separate peace with Germany. 
Page 255
Wilson had clearly promised that the peace treaty would be negotiated 
and based on the Fourteen Points but the Treaty of Versailles was 
imposed without negotiation and the Fourteen Points fared very poorly 
in its provisions. The subsequent claim of the German militarists 
that the German Army was never defeated but was "stabbed in the back" 
by the home front through a combination of international Catholics, 
international Jews, and international Socialists have no merit 
     JCT: Considering that the Germans surrendered upon the promise of 
the Fourteen points, the fact that the Fourteen Points fared very 
poorly is certainly a good reason for German militarists to have felt 
that they were sold out by their representatives at Versailles. 
On all fronts, almost 13 million men in the various armed forces 
died and the war destroyed over $400 billion in property at a time 
when the value of every object in France and Belgium was not worth 
over $75 billion. 
     JCT: One relevant fact was not mentioned, how much money 
Rothschild and Rockefeller made before, during and after all the 
Page 256
In July 1914, the military men were confident that a decision 
would be reached in six months. This belief was supported by the 
financial experts who, while greatly underestimating the cost of  
fighting, were confident financial resources would be exhausted in six 
months. By financial resources, they meant "gold reserves." These were 
clearly limited; all the Great Powers were on the gold standard. 
However each country suspended  the gold standard at the outbreak of 
war. This removed the automatic limitation on the supply of paper 
money. The each country proceeded to pay for the war by borrowing from 
the banks. The banks created the money which they lent my merely 
giving the government a deposit of any size against which the 
government could draw checks. The banks were no longer limited in the 
amount of credit they could create because they no longer had to pay 
out gold for checks on demand. This the creation of money in the form 
of credit by the banks was limited only by the demands of its 
borrowers. Naturally, as governments borrowed to pay for their needs, 
private businesses borrowed to be able to fill the  
government's orders. The percentage of outstanding bank notes covered 
by gold reserves steadily fell and the percentage of bank credit 
covered by either gold or bank notes fell even further. 
Naturally, when the supply of money was increased in this fashion 
faster than the supply of goods, prices rose because a larger supply 
of money was competing for a smaller supply of goods. People received 
money for making capital goods, consumer goods and munitions but they 
could spend their money only to buy consumer goods. The problem of 
public debt became steadily worse because governments were financing 
such a large part of their activities by bank credit. Public debts 
rose by 1000 percent. 
     JCT: Notice that getting off the gold standard and using paper 
money worked just fine in financing the war. Now some will point out 
that this caused some inflation, and I won't disagree given that some 
much of the production backing up that new issue of money ended up 
being blown up. But had paper money been issued in exchange for useful 
production during the Depression rather than war production, it 
wouldn't have been blown up and no such inflation would occur. 
     This issuing paper money in exchange for new non-blastable 
collateral, much like a casino cashier issues new chips in exchange 
for pledged collateral, does not cause inflation no matter the knee-
jerk reaction of all economists to the issuance of any new money by 
unorthodox methods. 
     Only as long as banks create the money and governments borrow it 
from banks do economists find the creation of money okay but moment 
government Treasuries do it and cut out banker middlemen, they they 
invariably scream inflation. 
     Anyway, we have here a good indication that unorthodox financial 
methods of creating and issuing money would work fine as long as 
production backing up the new money isn't slated to be exploded or  
     And note that the government public debts to Rothschild and 
Rockefeller grew by 1000%. Not a bad profit for them with only the  
slaughter of their neighbors kids as the cost. You can bet none of 
their kids were on the front lines though I sure wish they had been. 
Page 259
Governments began to regulate imports and exports to ensure that 
necessary materials stayed in the country and did not go to enemy 
states. This led to the British blockade of Europe. 
Page 251
The results of the blockade were devastating. Continued for nine 
months after the armistice, it caused the deaths of 800,000 persons, 
reparations took 108,000 horses, 205,000 cattle, 426,000 sheep and 
240,000 fowl. 
     JCT: So they kept on killing Germans for many months after the 
war. That's another fact I'd never heard about before reading Quigley. 
Had anyone else heard that the continued blockade killed almost a 
million more people after the war? 
Page 262
Countries engaged in a variety  of activities designed to regulate 
the flow of information which involved censorship, propaganda and 
curtailment of civil liberties.
Page 263
The War Propaganda Bureau was able to control almost all information 
going to the American press.
The Censorship and Propaganda bureaus worked together. The former 
concealed all stories of Entente violations of the laws of war or of 
the rules of humanity while the Propaganda Bureau widely publicized 
the violations and crudities of the Central Powers. The German 
violation of Belgian neutrality was constantly bewailed, while nothing 
was said of the  Entente violation of Greek neutrality. A great deal 
was made of the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia while the Russian 
mobilization which had precipitated the war was hardly mentioned. In 
the Central Powers a great deal was made of the Entente encirclement 
while nothing was said of the Kaiser's demands for "a place in the 
sun" of the High Command's refusal to renounce annexation of any part 
of Belgium.
     JCT: And why would the media have slanted the news this way? It 
would have been pretty tough to get the children of the sheeple to 
march off to the drums of war if the truth had been told.
Manufacture of outright lies by propaganda agencies was infrequent and 
the desired picture of the enemy was built up by a process of 
selection and distortion of evidence until, by 1918, many in 
the West regarded the Germans as bloodthirsty and sadistic militarists 
while the Germans regarded the Russians as "subhuman monsters." A 
great deal was made, especially by the British, of "atrocity" 
propaganda; stories of German mutilation of bodies, violation of 
women, cutting off a  children's hands, desecration of churches, and 
crucifixions of Belgians were widely believed in the West by 1916. In 
1917, Henry Carter is created a story that the  Germans were cooking 
human bodies to extract glycerine and produced pictures to prove it. 
Again, photographs of mutilated bodies  in a Russian anti-Semitic 
outrage in 1905 were circulated as pictures of Belgians in 1915. There 
were several reasons for the use of such atrocity stories:   
a) to build up the fighting spirit of the mass army;
b) to stiffen civilian morale;
c) to encourage enlistments;
d) to increase subscriptions for war bonds;
e) to justify one's own breaches of international law;
f) to destroy the chances of negotiating peace or to justify a severe 
final peace;
g) to win the support of the neutrals. 
     JCT: I think the most important reason was f) because a 
negotiated peace would have ended the Rothschilds and Rockefellers' 
profits from munitions manufacturer. The others were certainly 
necessary but making sure there was no peace had to be number one and 
it sure worked. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers revelled in gore 
The relative innocence and credulity of the average person who 
was not yet immunized to propaganda assaults through mediums of mass 
communication in 1914 made the use of such stories relatively 
effective. But the discovery in the period after 1919 that they had 
been hoaxed gave rise to a skepticism toward all government 
communications which was especially noticeable in the Second World 
     JCT: What a joke. They were skeptical until the next set of hoax 
pretexts and then joined the parades marching off to the next war as 
eagerly as they always had. We just have look at recent false pretexts 
to appreciate just how effective R&R's media control is at getting the 
booboisie to cheer the next and then the next bloodlettings. 
Page 267
The criticisms of the peace settlements was as ardent from the victors 
as from the vanquished aimed at the terms which were neither unfair 
nor ruthless. The causes of the discontent rested on the procedures 
which were used rather than the terms themselves. Above all, there was 
discontent at the contrast between the procedures which were used and 
the procedures which pretended to be used, as well as between the 
high-minded principles which were supposed to be applied and those 
which really were applied.
     JCT: So the Germans really got screwed. 
Page 268
When it became clear that they were to be imposed rather than 
negotiated, that the Fourteen Points had been lost in the confusion, 
that the terms had been reached by a process of secret negotiations 
from which the smaller nations had been excluded, there was a 
revulsion against the treaties. By 1929, most of the Western World had 
feelings of guilt and shame whenever they thought of the Versailles 
Treaty. In England, the same groups, often the same people, who had 
made the wartime propaganda and the peace settlements were loudest in 
their complaint that the latter had fallen far below the ideals of the 
former while all the while their real aims were to use power politics 
to the benefit of Britain.  
     JCT: So the Germans really got screwed.. 
The peace settlements were made by an organization which was chaotic 
and by a procedure which was fraudulent. None of this was deliberate. 
It arose rather from weakness and ignorance, from a failure to decide 
on what principles it would be based. 
     JCT: Quigley must think we're pretty gullible if he thinks we're 
going to believe that none of it was deliberate. You just have to look 
at how once again Rothschild and Rockefeller interests reaped a 
fortune from the Versailles reparations to realize how non-accidental 
it really was. They profited because they knew exactly what they were 
Page 269
Since the Germans had been promised the right to negotiate, it became 
clear that the terms could not first be made the subject of public 
compromise. Unfortunately, by the time the victorious Great Powers 
realized all this and decided to make the terms by secret negotiations 
among themselves, invitations had already been sent to all the 
victorious powers to come to the conference. As a solution to this 
embarrassing situation, the peace treaty was made on two levels. On 
one level, in the full glare of publicity, the Inter-Allied Conference 
became the Plenary Peace Conference and with the considerable fanfare, 
did nothing. On the other level, the Great Powers worked out their 
peace terms in secret and when they were ready, imposed them 
simultaneously on the conference and on the Germans. This had not been 
intended. It was not clear to anyone just what was being done. 
     JCT: I'm sure that it was pretty clear to the bankers agents in 
charge of most of the negotiations and seems pretty clear that it had 
been intended that it would not be clear just what was being done. 
Page 271
At all these meetings, as at the Peace Conference itself, the 
political leaders were assisted by groups of experts and interested 
persons. Many of the experts were members associates of the 
international banking fraternity. 
     JCT: Are these the members of the international banking 
fraternity that it wasn't clear to? Are these the guys who didn't 
intend the results that occured? Was the fact the bankers made a 
financial killing all accidental? It's funny how Quigley can report 
this kind of information then conclude they accidentally made 
themselves rich with processes no one understood. 
In every case but one, where a committee of experts submitted a 
unanimous report, the Supreme Council accepted its recommendation. The 
one case where a report was not accepted was concerned with the Polish 
corridor, the same issue which led to the Second World War where the 
experts were much harsher on Germany than the final decision of the 
     JCT: So in all cases, the shameful Versailles Treaty were the 
product of the word of the international banking experts and the one 
case where they weren't listened to, they wanted to screw the Germans 
even more so that there would be even greater grievances to lead to 
the Second World War where they also who made a killing. 
Page 272
The German delegation offered to accept the disarmament sections and 
reparations if the Allies would withdraw any statement that Germany 
had, alone, caused the war and would re-admit Germany to the world's 
     JCT: Considering how many times the Germans had tried to make 
peace while the British would not and how it was an illegal British 
blockade which led to the unrestricted submarine warfare, I can 
understand why many Germans would resent having the sole blame for the 
war placed on them. I myself would place the millions of dead at the 
feet of the bankers controlling the politicians in London who made 
sure there was no peace, not at the feet of the Germans who it seems 
did try. 
Page 273
The Allies answer accused the Germans of sole guilt in causing the war 
and of inhuman practices during it. The Germans voted to sign if the 
articles on war guilt and war criminals could be struck from the 
treaty. When the Allies refused these concessions, the Catholic Center 
Party voted 64-14 not to sign. The High Command of the German army 
ordered the Cabinet to sign. The Treaty of Versailles was signed by 
all the delegations except the Chinese in protest against the 
disposition of the prewar German concessions in Shantung.
     JCT: So we can understand how Hitler could have made good use of 
the resentment felt by most Germans at the politicians who accepted 
the sole blame for the war. This resentment can be said to be one of 
the main reasons Hitler found much of his support. Also, being forced 
to make reparations payments for the war for another 70 years was 
another good reason that they preferred to fight a second war rather 
than pay through the nose until 1990. 
Page 274
No progress was possible in Hungary without some solution of the 
agrarian question and the peasant discontent arising from 
monopolization of the land. 
The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (acting on behalf of France's 
greatest industrialist, Eugene Schneider) made a deal with the 
Hungarians that if they would sign the Treaty of Trianon and give 
Schneider control of the Hungarian state railways, the port of 
Budapest and the Hungarian General Credit Bank, France would 
eventually make Hungary one of the mainstays of its anti-German bloc 
in Eastern Europe and, at the proper time, obtain a drastic revision 
of the Treaty of Trianon. Paleologue received his reward from 
Schneider. He was made director of Schneider's personal holding 
     JCT: This may seem that it was only one preson in the French 
government pursuing policies to the benefit of one rich man but you 
can bet others in the government were in on the deal. Remember how 
Britain obstructed the Turkish railway until rich British businessmen 
were granted concessions? This is just more of the same, governments 
pursuing policies to the benefit of the Rothschild and their agents. 
The Treaty of Sevres with Turkey was never signed because of the 
scandal caused by the Bolsheviki publication of the secret treaties 
regarding the Ottoman Empire, since these treaties contrasted so 
sharply with the expressed war aims of the Allies. 
The British felt that richer prospects were to be obtained from the 
Turkish sultan. In particular, the French were prepared to support the 
claims of Standard Oil to such concessions while the British were 
prepared to support Royal Dutch Shell.
     JCT: The French were supporting claims to Rockefeller's Standard 
Oil concessions and the British were supporting claims to Rothschild's 
Shell Oil concessions. What else is new? 
Page 277
The chief territorial disputes arose over the Polish corridor. 
France's Foch wanted to give all of East Prussia to Poland. Instead, 
the experts gave Poland access to the sea by severing East Prussia 
from the rest of Germany by creating a Polish corridor in the valley 
of the Vistula. However, the city of Danzig was clearly a German city 
and Lloyd George refused to give it to Poland. Instead, it was a made 
a free city under the protection of the League of Nations. 
     JCT: Notice that even though Danzig was a German city, it was 
this issue which was at the root of the dispute between Germany and 
Poland upon which the British and France went to war with Germany in 
1939. Had they not severed East Prussia from Germany in this way, 
there would have been no World War Two. 
     Interestingly, had they not severed Kuwait from Iraq to give it 
to a few rich families so they could loot the oil reserves with the 
Oil companies, there would have been no 1991 Desert Storm war. 
     It's interesting to note now many of the partitions of land 
later resulted in wars, almost as if the bankers at Versailles were 
planning new profitable war ventures years in advance. 
Page 279
The most violent controversies arose in regard to the boundaries of 
Poland. Of these, only that with Germany was set by the Treaty of 
Versailles. The Poles refused to accept their other frontiers and by  
1920 were at war with Lithuania over Vilna, with Russia over the  
eastern border, with the Ukrainians over Galaicia, and with 
Czechoslovakia over Teschen. 
Page 280
These territorial disputes are of importance because they continued to 
lacerate relationships between neighboring states until well into the 
period of World War II. There were 1,000,000 Germans living in Poland, 
550,000 in Hungary, 3,100,000 in Czechoslovakia, about 700,000 in 
Romania, 500,000  in Yugoslavia and 250,000 in Italy. To protect these 
minorities, the Allied Powers forced the new states to sign treaties 
grating a certain minimum political rights guaranteed by the League 
of Nations with no power to enforce observation of them.
     JCT: So decisions made by the bankers at Versailles continued to 
lacerate relationships between neighboring states right into the 
Second World War. We might have thought that these territorial 
partitions were accidental if the bankers weren't still making so much 
money out of those later wars. 
Page 282
     The French were torn between a desire to obtain as large a 
fraction as possible  of Germany's payments and a desire to pile on 
Germany such a crushing burden of indebtedness that Germany would be 
ruined beyond the point where it could threaten French security again. 
     A compromise originally suggested by John Foster Dulles was 
adopted by  which Germany was forced to admit an unlimited, 
theoretical obligation to pay  but was actually bound to pay  for only 
a limited list of ten categories of obligations with pensions being 
larger than the preceding nine categories together. All reparations 
were wiped out in the financial debacle of 1931-1932.
     JCT: One interesting fact that I ran into that Quigley never 
mentioned was the so-called French "carbide ring," the trial of a 
group of French industrialists who continued to do business with 
Germany during the war whose sales supported the Germans to such an 
extent that the carbide ring were charged with providing the means by 
which Germans could kill French soldiers. Of course, the trial was 
fixed and they beat the charge and even though the French branch of 
the Rothschild family weren't charged, they probably should have been. 
Even the judge decried the prosecution's inept handling of the case 
and maybe the fact that they were acquitted is the reason Quigley 
didn't mention their profits from the deaths of the own countrymen. 
     Of course, the German branch of the Rothschild family probably 
sold the war material necessary for the British and French to kill 
Germans in the same way. Remember that they are hailed as patriotic by 
the prospective nations for their financial support of their 
individual war efforts without the realization that it still boils 
down to their making money no matter who wins. 
Page 283
Britain had obtained all her chief ambitions. The German navy was 
at the bottom of Scapa Flow scuttled by the the Germans themselves;
the German merchant fleet was scattered, captured, destroyed; the 
German colonial rivalry was ended and its areas occupied; the German 
commercial rivalry was crippled by the loss of its patents and 
industrial techniques, the destruction of all its commercial outlets 
and banking connections throughout the world, and the loss of its 
rapidly growing prewar markets. France on the other hand, had not 
obtained the one thing it wanted: security.
     JCT: So while many British and French families were attending 
funerals for their sons and daughters, some British businessmen were 
attending celebrations of the destruction of their German competition.
SECURITY 1919-1935
Page 287
The British governments of the Right began to follow a double policy: 
a public policy in which they spoke loudly in support of the foreign 
policy of the Left; and a secret policy in which they supported the 
foreign policy of the Right. 
     JCT: I love noting instances where governments say one thing 
while doing the other. Of course, the biggest lies are the ones that 
lead to the deaths of millions such as Wilson and Roosevelt intending 
to send American kids to war while promising not to. These kinds of 
lesser government lies may not result in the deaths of many of their 
nation's children but they always result in more money for the 
Thus the stated policy was based on support of the League of Nations 
and of disarmament yet the real policy was quite different. While 
openly supporting Naval disarmament, Britain signed a secret agreement 
with France which blocked disarmament and signed an agreement with 
Germany which released her from her naval disarmament in 1935. After 
1935, the contrast between the public and secret policy became so 
sharp that Lord Halifax called it "dyarchy." 
     JCT: Okay, so these decision did facilitate German rearmament 
making the Second World War easier to start after giving the Germans 
good reason to resent war guilt and 70 years of reparations payments. 
Page 289
The British Right forced France to give away every advantage which it 
held over Germany. Germany was allowed to rearm in 1935, allowed to 
remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936. Finally, when all had been lost, 
public opinion forced the British government to abandon the Right's 
policy of appeasement and adopt the old French policy of resistance 
made on a poor issue (Poland 1939)
In France, as in Britain, there appeared a double policy. While France 
continued to talk of collective security, this was largely for public 
consumption for in fact she had no policy independent of Britain's 
policy of appeasement. 
     JCT: What they call appeasement was really the bankers providing 
the opportunity to rearm after having provided the reason for great 
resentment. Some say that the bankers didn't really want to make all 
those war profits during the Second World War and their efforts to 
enable Germany to rearm so they could fight the oppressive conditions 
of the Versailles Treaty was just accidental doings of their banking 
agents at the Conference. I see a darker side of it all and conclude 
that they screwed the Germans so royally intending them to finally 
fight back. 
Page 290
War was not outlawed but merely subjected to certain procedural delays 
in making it, nor were peaceful procedures for settling international 
disputes made compulsory. 
The Covenant had been worded by a skillful British lawyer, Civil 
Hurst, who filled it with loopholes cleverly concealed under a mass of 
impressive verbiage so that no state's freedom of action was vitally 
     JCT: In other words, though many nations of the world wanted 
tight conditions on warmaking and war declaring, Civil Hurst, probably 
another banker's agent, provided the loopholes that permitted the 
freedom of action to make war. It's not too often that we can pin the 
blame for the deaths of millions so clearly on one person but I think 
Mr. Hurst's soul deserves to burn in Hell even if he was doing nothing 
more than following Rothschild orders. 
Page 293
The Locarno Pacts, which were presented at the time throughout the 
English-speaking world as a sensational contribution to the peace and 
stability of Europe, really formed the background for the events of 
1938 when Czechoslovakia was destroyed at Munich. When the guarantee 
of Locarno became due in 1936, Britain dishonored its agreement, the 
Rhine was remilitarized and the way was open for Germany to move 
eastward. Poland protested violently at the refusal to guarantee her 
     JCT: Now you can bet that it wasn't the mothers of the first 
war's dead soldiers who were promoting the German rearmament. About 
the only British I can imagine saw any profit in such rearmament were 
the usual bankers betting on another profitable war. 
Page 294 
France agreed to an extension of a multilateral agreement by which all 
countries could renounce the use of war as an instrument of national 
policy. The British government reserved certain areas, notably the 
Middle East, where it wished to be able to wage wars which could not 
be termed self-defence in a strict sense. The US also made reservation 
preserving its right to make war under the Monroe doctrine. The net 
result was that only aggressive war was to be renounced. The 
Kellogg-Briand Pact took one of the first steps toward destroying the 
legal distinction between war and peace, since the Powers, having 
renounced the use of war, began towage wars without declaring them as 
was done by Japan in China in 1937, by Italy in Spain in 1936 and by 
everyone in Korea in 1950. 
     JCT: So every attempt to deter war-making is defeated by the 
British and American governments. Again, they are not acting in the 
interests of the mothers and orphans of the recently slain but again 
they were acting in the interests of bankers who profit from these 
orphan-making activities. 
Page 296
The outlawry of war was relatively meaningless without some sanctions 
that could compel the use of peaceful methods. Efforts in this 
direction were nullified by Britain. 
     JCT: Not to blame British politicians in particular but let us 
not forget that the the real big money bankers did reside in London 
and New York at the time so it makes sense that they would be the most  
pliable bankers' agents. So let's be precise and say that peacemaking 
efforts were scuttled more by politicians under banker control rather 
than politicians who loved attending funerals though their policies 
certainly did help the business of morticians. 
     Somehow I'd have to bet that Rothschilds and Rockefellers would 
have cornered the market on morticians considering they profit by all 
other areas of the bloodletting. 
Page 303
Disarmament suggestions of the Soviet representative, Litvinoff, 
providing for immediate and complete disarmament of every country, was 
denounced by all. A substitute draft provided that the most heavily 
armed states would disarm by 50%, the less heavily-armed by 31% and 
the lightly armed by 25%, and the disarmed by 0%. That all tanks, 
planes, gas and heavy artillery be completely prohibited was also 
rejected without discussion and Litvinoff was beseeched to show a more 
"constructive spirit." 
     JCT: Once again, efforts to curtail war-making potential are 
scuttled by the back-room forces who consider such actions as "non-
constructive." The only people who can say that ending war-making 
capacity is not constructive must be those who profit by such 
destruction and the only people who regularly profit from war are the 
Page 305
Once it was recognized that security was in acute danger, financial 
considerations were ruthlessly subordinated to rearmament giving rise 
to an economic boom which showed clearly what might have been achieved 
earlier if financial consideration had been subordinated to the 
world's economic and social needs earlier; such action would have 
provided prosperity and rising standards of living which might have 
made rearming unnecessary.  
     JCT: This is a major point. If financial considerations were 
subordinated to productive enterprise, it would give rise to an 
economic boom in favor of wealth production. The fact that financial 
considerations interfere with productive enterprise is the tragedy of 
the past several millenia. 
     It is crucial to appreciate what Quigley is saying here. He's 
saying that the men who control the financial system permitted an 
economic boom once mankind was involved in destroying itself but would 
not permit such a boom when mankind wanted to make productive wealth. 
I consider the greatest crime of the Rothschild and Rockefellers. We 
could have been in an era of abundance but they diverted it to an era 
of destruction. Quite an indictment they'll have to face when they get 
to the other side. 
Page 305
The preliminary payments were supposed to amount to a total of 20 
billion marks by May 1921. Although the Entente Powers contended that 
only 8 billion had been paid, the whole matter was dropped when the 
Germans were presented with a total reparations bill of 132 billion 
marks. Under pressure, Germany accepted this bill and gave the victors 
bonds of indebtedness. Of these, 82 billion were set aside and 
forgotten. Germany was to pay the other 50 billion at 2.5 billion a 
year in interest and .5 billion a year to reduce the total debt. 
     JCT: It would only take 100 years to pay off a total of 250 
billion in interest and 50 billion in principal. 
Page 306
Germany could only pay if two conditions prevailed:
a) if it had a budgetary surplus and
b) if it sold abroad more than it bought abroad. 
Since neither of these conditions generally existed in the period 
1921-1931, Germany could not, in fact, pay reparations.
The failure to obtain a budgetary surplus was solely the 
responsibility of the government which refused to reduce its own 
expenditures or the standards of living off its own people or to tax 
them sufficiently heavily. The failure to obtain a favorable balance 
of trade because foreign creditors refused to allow a free flow of 
German goods into their own countries. Thus creditors were unwilling 
to accept payment in the only way in which payments could honestly be 
made, that is, by accepting German goods and services.  
     JCT: Notice they wanted money and not the goods that they would 
buy with that money. This means that they'd have to again fight to 
convert their production into scarce money instead of just paying with 
bartered products. This is standard usurious problem of the whole 
world. You can't pay your banker with increased production. He wants 
only cash so you must fight to sell your production before you can 
Germany could have paid in real goods and services if the creditors 
had been willing to accept such goods and services. The government 
made up the deficits by borrowing from the Reichsbank. The result was 
an acute inflation which was not injurious to the influential groups 
though it was generally ruinous to the middle classes and thus 
encouraged extremist elements. 
     JCT: So financial policies were at the root of the acute 
inflation and the general malaise which ruined the middle class and 
made them so thankful to Hitler when he used a national LETS system to 
provide them with currency to generate full employment while the rest 
of the world suffered the worst unemployment and depression in 
recorded history. 
Page 307
On Jan 9,1923, the Reparations Committee voted 3 to 1 (Britain 
opposing France, Belgium and  Italy) that Germany was in default. 
Armed forces of the three nations began to occupy the Ruhr two days 
later. Germany declared a general strike in the area, ceased all 
reparation payments, and adopted a program of passive resistance, the 
government supporting the strikers by printing more paper money.
The area occupied was no more than 60 miles long by 30 miles wide but 
contained 10% of Germany's population and produced 80% of Germany's 
coal, iron and steel and 70% of her freight traffic. Almost 150,000 
Germans were deported. 
     JCT: Again, pissing them off to the point where they were ready 
to go to war to fight back. 
Page 308
A compromise was reached by which Germany accepted the Dawes Plan for 
reparations and the Ruhr was evacuated. The Dawes Plan was largely a 
J.P. Morgan production drawn up by an international committee of 
financial experts presided over by American banker Charles Dawes. 
Germany paid reparations for five years (1924-1929) and owed more at 
the end than it had owed at the beginning. 
     JCT: And of course, the J.P. Morgan production ended up with 
Germany paying for five full years and owing more than when they 
started. Yet, this is now many people's mortgages still work today. 
It is worthy of note that this system was set up by the international 
bankers and that the subsequent lending of other people's money to 
Germany was very profitable to these bankers. 
Using these American loans, Germany's industry was largely rebuilt to 
make it the second best in the world and to pay reparations. 
     JCT: At least he admits that war reparations were very profitable 
to the bankers. I don't think they were profitable to anyone else. 
Page 309
By these loans Germany's creditors were able to pay their war debts to 
England without sending goods or services. Foreign exchange went to 
Germany as loans, back to Italy, Belgium, France and Britain as 
reparations and finally back to the US as payments on war debts. In 
that period, Germany paid 10.5 billion marks in reparations but 
borrowed 18.6 billion abroad. Nothing was settled by all this but the 
international bankers sat in heaven under a rain of fees and 
     JCT: I must point out that you'll read this kind of frank honest 
information in no other history book that I know of. I've heard that 
it's available at and if it is, I'd recommend it to the 
library of any monetary reformer. 
Page 310
The Dawes Plan was replaced by the Young Plan, named after the 
American Owen Young (a Morgan agent). A new private bank called the 
Bank for International Settlements was established in Switzerland. 
Owned by the chief central banks of the world and holding accounts for 
each of them, "a Central Bankers' Bank," it allowed payments to be 
made by merely shifting credits from one country's account to another 
on the books of the bank. 
The Young Plan lasted for less than 18 months. The crash of the 
New York stock market in 1929 marked the end of the decade of 
reconstruction and ended the American loans to Germany. 
     JCT: The Young Plan had projected Germany payments lasting until 
1990 and considering how the Dawes plan had ended up with them owing 
more at the end of the plan than when it started, it's not unrealistic 
to assume that in 1990, they might have again owed more than when they 
started and possibly renegotiated payments for another 60 or 70 years. 
Germans and others had begun a "flight from the mark" which created a 
great drain on the German gold reserve. As it dwindled, the volume of 
money and credit erected on that reserve had to be reduced by raising 
the interest rate. Prices fell because of the reduced money supply so 
that it became almost impossible for the banks to sell collateral to 
obtain funds to meet the growing demand for money.
     JCT: Here Quigley tells us loans are savings and has forgotten 
that he had earlier told us it was new credit. 
Page 311
On May 8, 1931, the largest Austrian bank, the Credit-Anstalt (a 
Rothschild institution) which controlled 70% of Austria's industry, 
announced a $140 million schillings loss. The true loss was over a 
billion and the bank had been insolvent for years. The Rothschilds and 
the Austrian government gave the Credit-Anstalt 160 million to cover 
the loss but public confidence had been destroyed. A run began on the 
bank. To meet this run, the Austrian banks called in all the funds 
they had in German banks. The German banks began to collapse. These 
latter began to call in all their funds in London. The London banks 
began to fall and gold flowed outward. On Sept.21, England was forced 
off the gold standard. The Reichsbank lost 200 million marks of its 
gold reserve in the first week of June and a billion in the second. 
The discount rate was raised step by step to 15% without stopping the 
loss of reserves but destroying the activities of the German 
industrial system almost completely.
    JCT: I always find it amazing that all the bankers have to do is 
withdraw money from circulation precipitating a panic and everything 
shuts down. Even though they have the same men, machinery, resources, 
and with the only change being a withdrawal of money from circulation 
and all industrial activity is paralyzed by a mental impediment. It's 
the reason I wrote the poem about the ants being superior to men in 
In Mother Nature, ants you see, no slouchers, not a one,
They manage full employment which man has yet begun.
Like in the Great Depression where men sat before their trees,
With hammers, nails and chain-saws, their lot was still to freeze.
They couldn't build their houses and they couldn't grow their food,
They couldn't clothe their families, such ineptitude.
What makes the ants superior to men and all his deeds?
The ants are not dependent on scarce money for their needs.
Man is the only animal who has to pass the test,
To get cash for his pay, his boss must pay some interest.
Because of lack of money, men were brought down to their knees.
Then came the war and there was money, plenty as you please.
They now constructed barracks and their food they now could grow,
They now could make the uniforms, production on the go.
The war did put the scarcity of money to an end,
Destruction was acceptable so money they would spend.
Where was that money years before with idle men in ranks?
The cash was kept in short supply on purpose by the banks.
But I believe that engineers can equal ants so skilled,
At rounding up and turning on manpower unfulfilled.
When every source of power can put out all of its might,
Mankind will match the ants at last and shed its greatest light."
Germany begged for relief on her reparations payments but her 
creditors were reluctant unless they obtained similar relief on the 
war-debt payments to the US. The President suggested a moratorium for  
one year if its debtors would extend the same privilege to their 
debtors. Acceptance of this plan was delayed by French demands which 
were rejected by the U.S. 
Page 312
At the June 1932 Lausanne Conference, German reparations were cut 
to a total of only 3 billion marks but the agreement was never 
ratified because of the refusal of the US Congress to cut war debts 
equally drastically. In 1933, Hitler repudiated all reparations. 
     JCT: Someone had to or they'd still be owing today. 
     Though I may be giving the Rothschilds and Rockefellers a rough 
time, I'm sure that in the new LETS world of future, they'll jump at 
the chance to change their names and not be associated with their 
murderous forbears. I can't help feeling an complete contempt for 
their kind. I consider them the kind of people who would steal the 
medicine money from a dying child, not because they need it but just 
so they can sit on a bigger pile they'll never be able to spend, not 
because they need it but just so the dying child doesn't get it. 
     Is it any wonder I can understand those Muslims who consider 
taking usury 70 times worse than intercourse with your mother on the 
altar of your temple? I too consider the Rothschild and Rockefeller 
moneylenders worse than the worst mother-fuckers in the world. 
     What bugs me most is that I'll have to forgive them and forget 
what they've done if they change their ways and go straight as the 
Lord commands in Ezekiel. I might even have to thank those of them who 
change their ways and throw their resources into establishing the  
world-wide LETS and saving us all. But until they do change their 
ways, if Christ could attack them with his whip, I can certainly call 
them the genocidal monsters that they are. 

Send a comment to John Turmel