articles which explain how and why the Bilderberg meetings began. (2024)

|| |||

Bilderberg Conferences

[This site campaigns for a press conference at all Bilderberg venues - and a declaration from the steeringcommittee that any consensus reached must be inour public, not their private interest]

Creator and chairman of the Bilderbergers was a card carrying member of Hitler's SS and repeatedly lied when asked if he was a Nazi party member as a student (separate page all about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands)

This photograph was taken at the first Bilderberg meeting at Prince Bernhard'sBilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland in 1954. Hugh Gaitskell is in thefar corner of the room looking rather sceptical and you can just see himscratching his chin. Another more limited photo of the same room which includes chairman PrinceBernhard is here

Novus Ordo Seclorum: Pax Americana

MUST READ: The Bilderberg Group and the project of European unification - by Prof. Mike Peters in 'Lobster' 32

NEW 14Feb17 - Martin Bormann and Nazi gold - Allied/Nazi traitors - Marilyn, Hitler and Me, The memoirs of Milton Shulman (1998) [page]

11Apr16 - The Traitor of Arnhem by Lt. Col. Oreste Pinto - Nazi agent betrays Operation Market Garden causing Oosterbeek slaughter

04Apr12 - Inaugural Bilderberg meeting held at SS Hexenkessel or 'Witches Cauldron', site of 1944 1st Airborne slaughter

March 2012 - Audio clips from the 1954 first Bilderberg meeting

18Mar12 - Operation Market Garden's curious Bilderberg connections

Rare book about Hitler's No. 2 whose death was faked in 1972: Martin Bormann, Nazi In Exile by Paul Manning (1981)

The Nuts And Bolts Of Nazi Continuity: Extract from MBNIE on crucial Red House Meeting, Thu 10th August 1944 at Maison Rouge in Strasbourg

Official attendee list PDF from the first ever Bilderberg meeting in Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg Hotel, Oosterbeek, Holland, May 1954

"Imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe" extract from a paper on the EU single market programme

The Round Table - Extracted from The Anglo-American Establishment, from Rhodes to Cliveden, by Carrol Quigley

An Uncommon View of the Birth of an Uncommon Market - Alfred Mendez

1939-1945 - The Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies Group - roundtable

'Memoirs of an Eminence Grise' - by John Pomian - 1972 - extract from biography of Joseph Retinger

Sat21Dec1968 - Daily Telegraph - Sikorski pilot denies role in death plot

Eisenhower’s special assistant for psychological warfare.......

'The Global Manipulators' by Robert Eringer - Chapter 1 'In Search of Answers'

'Uniting the West' - by ex British chancellor Denis Healey - from his autobiography 'The Time of My Life'

'The Hôtel de Bilderberg' from 'H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; an authorized biography' - Alden Hatch

'Prince Bernhardt's Secret Society' by A.K. Chesterton

Historical Links

Trident research page now gone - recovered here

http://www.angelfire.com/wv2/blueridgeprint/

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN BLUEPRINT FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER,

A WORLD FEDERAL UNION CALLED - the UNITED STATES OF MAN (originally entitledUNION NOW WITH BRITAIN) - by Clarence K. Streit, 1941, author also of UNIONNOW

This work, at the outset of Hitler’s rise, led to the establishmentof the United Nations and its relevance to post-9/11 geo-political foreignpolicy by the governments of the United States and Great Britain is evident--theprecise formula being executed by Bush and Blair governments!

UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN was Streit’s second edition and expanded versionof UNION NOW, which was widely distributed and read during WWII in Americaand England, what George Orwell called “this much-discussed book”.

Now more obscure, this publisher, upon discovery, saw immediately the relevanceof this book to post-9/11 events and thought it needed new distribution towarn of this master blueprint for Novus Ordo Seclorum—a new world order.The relevance of UNION NOW WITH BRITAIN can be readily observed by the Bush-Blairresponse and Anglo-American governments coalition to launch a global “Waron Terrorism” to ”reorder the world” after September 11, 2001under 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 acceleratedthis 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 UnitedNations 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... Thisis a moment to seize...let us re-order this world around us." - British PrimeMinister Tony Blair, Oct. 2, 2001 (BBC)

http://www.angelfire.com/wv2/blueridgeprint/

1900 hrs Wed 20th Sept 1944, Nijmegen - Can XXX Corps make it to Arnhem?My scenarios for two Market Garden wargames

Nato=Nazi - link four - clickhere for next

From Lobster 32http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

This article copyright Lobster Magazine and Sociology Prof. Mike Peters

Lobster is a six-monthly magazine/journal devoted to parapolitics, uncoveringhidden forces that govern the way we live. Typical articles include:'The CIA, drugs and the media', Jane Affleck's web survey, 'the RockefellerUFO initiative'. It is an independently published by the editor andneeds all the support it can get. The following article has been usedwith permission, if you like what you read do please consider taking outLobster's modest subscription.

The annual cost is between six and nine pounds stirling depending on whereyou live. Postal address and email at the bottom of the article.

You can subscribe to Lobster here: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk

Download this paper as an .rtf text document here

Prof. Mike Peters

Introduction

Despite their reputation for 'empiricism', British academics have tendedto treat political power by means of abstract concepts rather than empiricalinformation about the actions of determinate individuals and groups (e.g.Giddens, 1984, 1985; Scott, 1986). After a brief efflorescence of empiricalstudies of the so-called 'Establishment' in the early 1960s, sociologistsin Britain became diverted from empirical investigation of power, as thestudy of national and international power-structures became conducted underthe 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 discussionsof the 'theory' of the state (e.g. Jessop, 1990), culminating in the hegemonyof a post-Marxist version of Gramsci's conception of 'hegemony' - in which'struggle' is posited without any identifiable human beings as its activeprotagonists, and with the stakes reduced to ideas rather than concreteinterests.

This was in sharp contrast with the USA, where the impetus of C. Wright Mills'spioneering study of the network of interests involved in the Cold War (Mills,1956) was continued by a flourishing group of scholars. There has been nothingin Britain of comparable scope or detail to the work conducted in the USAby G. W. Domhoff, Thomas Dye, Mark Mizruchi or Noam Chomsky, etc.

The present article is concerned with one specific facet of Americanpower-structure research which, I believe, has important implications forthe study of power in the UK. This is the subject of power-elite networksand forums, conceptualised as arenas for the conduct of intra-capitalistand inter-corporate strategic debates and long-range social planning, fromwhich wider 'democratic' interference is carefully excluded.

The particular institution about which I will present information is theso-called 'Bilderberg Group', which is an interesting example of this kindof power-elite forum. It is one among a number of little-publicised institutionswhich have played an important role providing a means for debates and discussionsto take place amongst different capitalist groups and different nationalgovernments over long-term planning issues and, especially, in Co-ordinatingstrategic policy at an international level. Other such bodies on thistrans-national scale include the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in theUSA, with its UK sister organisation, the Royal Institute of InternationalAffairs (otherwise known simply as Chatham House) and the Trilateral Commission(which itself grew out of Bilderberg meetings and has been essentially amore globalist version of the latter, since it incorporates Japaneserepresentatives). 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 ofa general interest on the part of the capitalist class as a whole. I shallsuggest that much of the theorising about the 'state' in the tradition ofstructural Marxism since the 1970s has confused this relation between capitaland national governments, owing to the tendency to reify the abstractioncalled ‘the state' and posit it as enjoying a virtual autonomyvis-à-vis capital; whereas the empirical evidence lends more supportto the rather hastily dismissed (and often grotesquely caricatured) modelcalled 'instrumentalism’.

To anticipate what will be said later, I believe that one of the key assumptionsoften made by structural Marxists, namely that the capitalist class is alwaysdivided into competing fractions which have no mechanisms for co-ordinationother than the state, is not empirically sustainable. Part of this misconception,it could be said, derives from an over-literal understanding of the conceptof the 'market' as constituting the only social relation amongst differentfractions of capital. At least as far as the very large, and above all, theinternational (or as we would say in today's jargon, the ‘global’)corporations are concerned, this is definitely not the case: very sophisticatedorgans do exist whereby these capitalist interests can and do hammer outcommon lines of strategy. Bilderberg is one of these mechanisms.

The Context

As the second world war drew to a close, the capitalist class in WesternEurope was under severe threat from an upsurge of working class radicalism,the management of which required a strategy more sophisticated than conventionalrepression, and the first steps were taken, by political panes of both leftand right, to develop 'corporatist' programmes based on a kind of nationalprotectionism. By contrast, in the USA, the war had brought to dominancean internationally-oriented capitalist class who saw very clearly that theirinterests lay in a thorough 'liberalisation' (1) of the world market, abolitionof tariffs etc.. Only the false wisdom of hindsight could make the eventualAtlantic 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 worldthat we can forget just how difficult it was for this internationally orientedfraction of the American capitalist class to impose its agenda upon the USstate: the deep-rooted tendency of American political culture has alwaysbeen what Europeans call Isolationist' and it took extensive political workto drag the Americans into these foreign entanglements. In this paper I willnot be looking in any detail at how these interests influenced the US governmentduring and after the Second World War, but rather at how they succeeded ineffecting the integration of the Western European capitalist class into anew Atlantic alliance system

The period 1945-50 is highly complex and debate still rages over the originand nature of the 'Cold War': for example over the degree to which the USwas acting offensively or defensively against a (real or imagined) Sovietthreat, as well as over the relation between the external or geopoliticalaspect 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 intoquestion many of the received assumptions about the causes and consequencesof the 'supranational' institutions created in Europe in the aftermath ofthe war (Milward, 1984 and 1994; Anderson, 1996).

The beginnings of a clarification of these events were made with the pioneeringanalysis of Kees Van der Pijl, in conjunction with other Dutch Marxist scholars(Fennema, Overbeek etc.) ten years ago, together with the detailed empiricalwork of US power-researchers (e.g. the journal Critical Sociology). Withthe collapse of the USSR and the subsequent 'coming out' of veterananti-Communists now prepared to open up some of their dubious accomplishmentsto outside scrutiny (Peter Coleman, Brian Crozier e.g.), more direct documentaryevidence of the scope and intensity of covert US involvement in Europeanpolitics in the post-war period is now available.

The Marshall Plan and NATO

The official version of the history of the creation of the Atlantic systemreads like the 'lives and teachings of saints (Milward, 1992). in these schooltextbook accounts, each of the pillars of the post-war world order has itsgreat 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 disciplineSchuman)

These are not just myths; they are, in intelligence parlance, more like 'coverstories'.

The Marshall Plan is named after the speech on June 5 1947 by US Secretaryof State Marshall, which invited European countries to join in a co-operativeplan for economic reconstruction, with explicit requirements for tradeliberalisation and increases in productivity. Over the next ten months thereemerged the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, which set up the EconomicCo-operation Agency (ECA) to administer the European Recovery Programme (ERP)- the so-called 'Marshall Aid' - which gave $13 billion in aid to 16 westernEuropean states. In four years, the ECA was superseded by the Mutual SecurityAgency (MSA) in 1951 which in turn was transformed into the Foreign OperationsAgency (FOA) in 1954, later the International Co-operation Agency (ICA) in1955 and finally the Agency for International Development (AID) in 196l (Carew1987 p. 6ff). it is generally recognised that this aid had a decidedlymilitaristic purpose, being essentially a prerequisite for the developmentof NATO. (2)

It is less generally acknowledged, however, that this unprecedented exerciseof international generosity (dubbed by Churchill the 'most unsordid act inhistory') served direct economic purposes for the internationally orientedUS corporations which promoted it. William Clayton, for example, theUnder-secretary for Economic Affairs, whose tour of Europe and letters sentback to Washington played a key role in preparing the plan, and who pushedit 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 Motorssimilarly 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).

Roots in the Council on Foreign Relations

The origins of the Marshall Plan are in fact to be found in the 'War andPeace Study Groups' instituted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)in 1939. (For the details see Shoup & Minter p. 117 ff). on December6 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation granted the Council nearly $50,000 to financethe first year of the project. Well over 120 influential individuals (academicsand business leaders), at least 5 cabinet levels departments and 12 separategovernment agencies, bureaux or offices were involved in this. There werealtogether 362 meetings and no less than 682 separate documents produced.I find it frankly astonishing that virtually none of the British academicscholarship on this period even acknowledges the existence of the CFR, letalone the War and Peace Study Groups. Evidence is surely required to showthat they had no influence, if that is what scholars believe.

The plan which Marshall presented in his speech had already been outlinedin the proposals of a CFR study group of 1946 headed by the lawyer CharlesM. Spofford and David Rockefeller, entitled 'Reconstruction in Western Europe';and the specific proposal for unifying the Western European coal and steelbasin as a bulwark against the USSR was made by John Foster Dulles in January1947.

To trace the origin of the movement for European unification, however, requiresthat we go back to May 8 1946 and an address given at Chatham House by aPole named Joseph Retinger. In this talk he outlined a plan for a federalEurope in which the states would relinquish part of their sovereignty. Atthe time, Retinger was secretary general of the Independent League for EuropeanCo-operation (ILEC), run by the Belgian Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland.During the war Retinger worked closely with van Zeeland and other exile leaderswho would become prominent in the Bilderberg network, (including Paul Rijkens,whom we will meet again shortly). (3) Out of these connections was born in1942-3 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 ofsuch projects for European unification and for even larger global schemes.One might just note here the assumption of the need for a 'great power' statusas well as the almost taken-for-granted racism which informed Retinger'sthinking:

'The end of the period during which the white man spread his activities overthe whole globe saw the Continent itself undergoing a process of internaldisruption........ there are no big powers left in continental Europe.......[whose] inhabitants after all, represent the most valuable human elementin the world.' (Retinger 1946, p. 7)

Shortly after this speech, Retinger was invited by the US ambassador, AverellHarriman, 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 WilliamWiseman, [British SIS and] partner in Kuhn Loeb [New York investment bank],George Franklin and especially my old friend Adolf Berle Jr [CFR], were allin favour, and Berle agreed to lead the American section [of ILEC]. JohnFoster Dulles also agreed to help. (Pomian 1972, p. 212)

Thus was formed the European Movement (whose first congress at the Haguein 1948 is- the origin of the Council of Europe), which received substantialcontributions from US government secret funds as well as private sourcesvia the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE). The names mentionedabove are significant in the present context: Leffingwell preceded John McCloyand David Rockefeller as CFR chair, 1946-53, and had been a CFR directorsince 1927, while Franklin was executive director of the CFR 1953-7 and waslater a Trilateral Commission Co-ordinator: also, incidentally an in-lawof the Rockefellers.

US funding for the European Movement extended beyond 1952, most of it goingto the European Youth Campaign, initiated by John McCloy, whose own careervirtually personifies the Atlantic ruling class as a whole: a corporate lawyerof 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 thenUS High Commissioner for Germany 1949-52 (where, among other things, he enabledKrupp to regain control of his steel companies, advising on the establishmentof the Krupp-Stiftung, modelled on the Ford Foundation - he was connectedto Adenauer through his German wife, whose sister married Lewis Douglas,J. P. Morgan financier and later US ambassador to Britain), after which hebecame a director of both the Chase Manhattan Bank and the Ford Foundationin 1953. He was also an active member of the Bilderberg Group, becoming chairof the Council on Foreign Relations itself.

As for ACUE, its chair was William Donovan (who ran OSS - forerunner of theCLA during the war) and its vice-chair was Allen Dulles (who was a leadingfigure in the CFR War and Peace Study Group during the early part of thewar, and later the director of the CIA); and it was run in Europe by anotherCIA executive, Thomas W. Braden.

The Bilderberg Group

'The Treaty of Rome [1957], which brought the Common Market into being, wasnurtured at Bilderberg meetings.' (George McGhee, former US ambassador toWest Germany)

'Bilderberg' takes its name from the hotel, belonging to Prince Bernhardof the Netherlands, near Arnhem, where, in May 1954 the first meeting tookplace of what has ever since been called the Bilderberg Group. While thename persisted, its meetings are held at different locations. Prince Bernhardhimself (who, incidentally, was actually German not Dutch) was chair until1976 when he was forced to resign because of the Lockheed bribery scandal.The possible significance of this group may be gleaned from the status ofits participants: the membership comprises those individuals who would, onmost definitions, be regarded as members of the 'ruling class' in WesternEurope and North America-In particular, the conferences brought togetherimportant figures in most of the largest international corporations withleading politicians and prominent intellectuals (in both academia andjournalism).

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 andEuratom down to the present European Union, were conceived, designed andbrought into existence through the agency of the people involved in Bilderberg.

Secrecy

What Gill has referred to, with disarming brevity, as its 'almost completelysecretive' character (Gill 1990, p. 129) is neither incidental nor superficialbut integral to its functioning. It is essential that these discussions bekept out of the public sphere. The lengths to which the organisers go arequite astonishing. An entire hotel is taken over in advance (existing guestsbeing moved out) and a whole caravanserai, including special catering staffand armed security guards, descend on the site several days in advance. Irecommend the amusing account by Robert Eringer - to my knowledge the onlyjournalistic investigation yet conducted (Eringer 1980). The maintenanceof this secrecy has been remarkably effective. In 1967, Cecil King, thenchair of the International Publishing Corporation (at the time the pressgroup with the largest circulation in the UK) and chair of the NewspaperProprietors Association, formally requested his fellow proprietors to seeto it that 'on no account should any report or even speculation about thecontent of the conferences be printed' (quoted in Sklar 1980, p. 178).

On one of the few occasions when Bilderberg meetings were mentioned in amajor British newspaper, the outcome was quite interesting. In the 'Lombard'column of the Financial Times, C. Gordon Tether wrote on May 6 1975: 'Ifthe Bilderberg Group is not a conspiracy of some sort, it is conducted insuch a way as to give a remarkably good imitation of one.' In a column writtenalmost a year later, for the March 3 l976 edition, Tether wrote: 'TheBilderbergers have always insisted upon clothing their comings and goingsin the closest secrecy. Until a few years back, this was carried to suchlengths that their annual conclave went entirely unmarked in the world'spress. In the more recent past, the veil has been raised to the extent ofletting it be known that the meetings were taking place. But the total banon the reporting of what went on has remained in force....Any conspiratologistwho 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 editorMark Fisher (himself a member of the Trilateral Commission), and Tether wasfinally dismissed from the 'Lombard' column in August 1976.

What goes on at Bilderberg?

It is important at the outset to distinguish the active, on-going membershipfrom the various people who are occasionally invited to attend. Many of thoseinvited to come along, perhaps to report on matters pertaining to theirexpertise, have little idea there is a formally constituted group at all,let alone one with its own grand agenda. Hence the rather dismissive remarksby people like sixties media guru Marshall McLuhan, who attended a Bilderbergmeeting in 1969 in Denmark, that he was 'nearly suffocated at the banalityand irrelevance,' describing them as 'uniformly nineteenth century mindspretending to relate to the twentieth century'. Another of those who haveattended, Christopher Price, then Labour MP for Lewisham West, found it 'allvery fatuous.... icing on the cake with nothing to do with the cake.' (Eringer1980, p. 26). Denis Healey, on the other hand, who was in from the beginningand later acted as British convenor, says that 'the most valuable [meetings]to me while I was in opposition were the Bilderberg Conferences'. (Healey1990, p. 195)

Bilderberg from the beginning has been administered by a small core group,constituted since 1956 as a steering committee, consisting of a permanentchair, a US chair, European and North American secretaries and a treasurer.Invitations are 'only sent to important and generally respected people whothrough their special knowledge or experience, their personal contacts andtheir influence in national and international circles can further the aimsset 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 participantswas a delicate and difficult task. This was particularly so as regardspoliticians. It was not easy to persuade the top office holders to come Retingerdisplayed great skill and an uncanny ability to pick out people who in afew years time were to accede to the highest offices in their respectivecountries today there are very few figures among governments on both sidesof 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 consensusrather than through formal resolutions and voting. Such is the influenceand standing of the active members that, if consensus for action is arrivedat, one might expect this to be carried out and the resulting decision tobe 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 ofthe specific careers and connections of the individual participants. Here,one has to say that social theorists seem convinced of the irrelevance ofthis kind of information, which would be called 'prosopographic' (i.e. datapertaining to concrete individuals, which companies they represent, theirfamily connections etc.). This is somewhat contradictory, of course, becausein their every-day roles, social theorists are just as interested in thiskind of information as anyone else, and display a keen sense of its politicalrelevance when it comes to conducting their own careers: but it has itnonetheless become almost a matter of principle to denounce use of this kindof data in social science itself. This tendency seems to come from a reificationof the concept of 'roles' (as if these were real rather than constructs)and possibly from a functionalist assumption that social systems are subjectto laws; with concrete human actors having no significance in shaping outcomes.

Origins of Bilderberg

The initiative for the first convocation came from Joseph Retinger, inconjunction with Paul Rijkens, President of Unilever. Retinger has alreadybeen introduced; and the significance of Unilever needs to be examined briefly.Unilever is one of the largest and most powerful multinational corporationsin the world and one of the top European capitalist companies. In the 1950'sthe advisory directors of Unilever were as follows (and I'm drawing attentionto the links with the Rotterdam Bank and Philips, the electrical firm):

· H.M. Hirschfield: also on the board of Philips and Rotterdam Bankand with the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs during the war, and afterit 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 Heldringand Pearson (linked with the Rotterdam Bank);

· P S.F Otten: also President of Philips (and married to a member ofthe Philips family)

One of the unusual features of Unilever is its bi-national structure (Stokmanet al, 1985): it is a jointly-owned AngloDutch company, with a 50/r0 structureand a unitary board. This was a very useful device during the war, whenoperations could be shifted easily from the Netherlands to the UK. Philipshad a similar arrangement under a Dutch law called the Corvo Law, wherebyin an emergency it could divide itself into two parts, which it did whenthe Germans invaded: one with its HQ in Germany and the other American. Boththese parts got large military contracts during the war, playing a role onboth sides (Aaronovitch 1961, pp. 110-11). Unilever's financial advisersare the US investment bank Lazard Freres, which handles the private financialaffairs of many of the world's wealthy families, including the Agnellis ofFiat. (See Koenig, 1990, Reich. 1983, Business Week June 18 1984).

Unilever's chief adviser on international affairs was David Mitrany, whosebook, A Working Peace Svstem, published in 1943, secured him this post. (Healso worked for Chatham House). it was Mitrany who coined the term'functionalism' to refer to the strategy of supra-national integration througha series of sectoral processes of internationalisation, designed to set inmotion an autonomous logic, making inevitable further integration and ultimatelymaking national states obsolete (Groom and Taylor p. 125 ff.). In the post-warperiod 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 thefunctionalists used the slogan 'Atlantic Partnership' as the framework forthe integration or synchronisation of US and European interests.

The immediate chain of events leading to the setting up of the first conferencewas as follows. Prince Bernhard set off for the USA in 1952 to visit hisold friend Walter Bedell Smith, director of the newly-formed CIA. Smith putthe organisation of the American end into the hands of Charles D. Jackson(special assistant for psychological warfare to the US President), who appointedJohn S. Coleman (president of the Burroughs Corporation. and a member ofthe Committee for a National Trade Policy), who in turn briefly became USchair of Bilderberg.

Charles Jackson was president of the Committee for a Free Europe (forerunnerof the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) whose extensive operations financingand organising anti-Communist social democratic political intellectuals hasonly recently been fully documented (see Coleman 1989); and ran the CIA-financedRadio Free Europe in Germany. Earlier he had been publisher of Fortune magazineand managing director of Time/Life, and during the war was deputy head ofpsychological warfare for Eisenhower. At the time of Bernhard's visit hewas working with a committee of businessmen on both sides of the Atlanticwhich 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 listof people to be invited to the first conference was drawn up by Retinger,with Prince Bernhard and Rijkens, from the European countries of NATO plusSweden. The resulting group consisted of the Belgian and Italian prime ministers,Paul van Zeeland and Alcide de Gasperi (CDU), from France both the rightwing prime minister Antoine Pinay and the Socialist leader Guy Mollet; diplomatslike Pietro Quaroni of Italy and Panavotis Pipinelis of Greece; top Germancorporate lawyer Rudolf Miller and the industrialist Otto Wolff von Amerongenand the Danish foreign minister Ole Bjorn Kraft (publisher of Denmark’stop daily newspaper); and from England came Denis Healey and Hugh Gaitskellfrom the Labour Party, Robert Boothby from the Conservative Party, Sir OliverFranks from the British state, and Sir Colin Gubbins, who had headed theSpecial 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 StateDepartment official, where he was architect of the policy of AtlanticPartnership, and later member of the Trilateral Commission. Ball was closelyassociated with Jean Monnet, owing to his work as legal counsel for the ECSCand the French delegation to the Schuman Plan negotiations.

· David Rockefeller was the key American member of Bilderberg. Spaceonly permits the briefest sketch of his direct economic and politicalinvolvements: head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, member of the Council onForeign Relations, member of the Business Council, the US council of theInternational Chamber of Commerce, and, of course, the founder of the TrilateralCommission.

· Dean Rusk: US Secretary of State 1961-69, earlier President of theRockefeller Foundation 1952-60, having succeeded John Foster Dulles, himselfan earlier Secretary of State and - this is not at all a coincidence - aclose personal friend of Jean Monnet whom he had first met at Versaillesin 1918 as well as of Dean Acheson, Truman's Secretary of State and the trueauthor of the Marshall Plan.

The final list was 67. Since then, the group enlarged somewhat, but the steeringgroup 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 Planand later became president of KLM airlines and the International Institutefor 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 namesit simply 'a private international relations council', but nothing couldbe more misleading than this name private, unless in its sense of‘secret’ When political leaders gather together with a view toarriving at consensus, in conjunction with leaders of industry and financeand press magnates and leading journalists, then this is not the same kindof thing as an assembly of ordinary private citizens. The vocabulary of pluralistpolitical science ('lobbies', 'non-governmental organisations' etc.)systematically distorts the actual power relations at work in these differentkinds of associations. It is even questionable whether Bilderberg meetingsare really 'private' in the legal sense of non-governmental. Robert Eringer,for example, having received an official reply that 'government officialsattend in a personal and not an official capacity', found that in fact officialshad attended Bilderberg conferences at government expense and in their officialcapacity. The British Foreign Office responded to his queries by saying 'wecan find no trace of the Bilderberg Group in any of our reference works oninternational organisations', while he later learnt that the Foreign Officehad paid for British members to attend Bilderberg conferences.

Van der Pijl's assessment of the role of Bilderberg seems about as accurateas the available information would allow:

'Rather than constituting an all-powerful secret Atlantic directorate, Bilderbergserved, at best, as the environment for developing ideas in that direction,and secrecy was necessary for allowing the articulation of differences ratherthan for keeping clear-cut projects from public knowledge. In this senseBilderberg functioned as the testing ground for new initiatives for Atlanticunity.' (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 ArabIsraeli 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'smonetary system wolfing again [after OPEC's quadrupling of oil prices], andit was important to try to knit together our networks of personal contacts.We had to resist institutionalism, bureaucratic red-tape, and the creationof new procedures and committees. Official bodies should be put in the positionof ratifying what had been jointly prepared in advance.' (Sklar, p. 171)

The European 'Community'

The Treaty of Rome signed on March 25 1957 created the 'common market' (theEuropean Economic Community) and its roots were laid down in the ECSC (theEuropean Coal and Steel Community) established on April 18 1951, based onthe Schuman Plan of May 9 1950 (Vaughan 1976, Milward 1984). It is notimplausible to suggest that the route from the one to the other in fact passedthrough the first five Bilderberg conferences, May 1954 at Oosterbeek(Netherlands), March 1955 at Barbizon (France), September the same year atGarmisch (Germany), May 1956 at Fredensborg (Denmark) and finally in February1957 at St. Simon's Island (Georgia, USA); and that these secret meetingsplayed a decisive role in overcoming the opposing, centrifugal tendenciessymbolised by the collapse of the European Defence Community in 1954, theHungarian revolution and its suppression and the fiasco of the Anglo-Frenchadventure at Suez in 1956 - the last gasp of independent European imperialism.

Even more important the 'protectionism' implicit in the European unificationproject was successfully subordinated to the ‘liberalising’ hegemonyof the Americans, through the close involvement of the key US players atevery stage. The evidence for this is entirely circ*mstantial, and thishypothesis must remain speculative, but I believe there is a prima faciecase to launch an investigation. It should be clear from the details recountedearlier that not all the possible roads led to the Rome Treaty, and thatthere is far more to the politics of European 'integration' than the legislativeenactments already known about.

Monnet's network

Monet himself, who mentions-neither Retinger nor Bilderberg in his memoirs(Monnet 1978), cannot have been unaware of the activities of these crucialconstituents of his programme. However much he may be portrayed in thehagiographies as a far-sighted idealist, Monnet was, first and foremost,an international financier, with an extensive network of connections on bothsides of the Atlantic, occupying a particular place in the configurationof capitalist interests forming what Van der Pijl calls the Atlantic circuitof money capital (Van der Pijl 1984). He was, for example, a close friendof all the key figures in the US power structure; but, more importantly,his network centred around the New York investment banks Lazard Freres (runby Andre Meyer who was also on the board of Rockefeller's Chase InternationalBank), and Goldmann Sachs, which, after the war gravitated into the Rockefellerorbit. Monnet's right-hand man, Pierre Uri, was European director of LehmanBrothers; and Robert Marjolin, one of Monnet's assistants in the firstmodernisation plan, subsequently joined the board of the Chase ManhattanBank. Uri and Marjolin were also active in Bilderberg.

When Monnet resigned from his position of 'High Authority' in the ECSC in1955 to run his Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUSE), hissecretary at ECSC, Max Kohnstamm who had earlier been private secretary toQueen Wilhelmina, (i.e. Prince Bernhard's mother-in-law), and then Dutchrepresentative in the Schuman Plan negotiations, became the vice-presidentof 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. Francoisduch*ene and Paul Delouvner, who both worked for ECSC in the fifties (andjoined the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s), Guy Mollet and Antoine Pinaywere in the Bilderberg network (5)

Europe since the fifties

It would be simply too large and complex a matter to trace the twists andturns in the politics of European unification since the period from the fiftiesto the present. Too much water has flowed under the bridge, and it is doubtfulthat it is any longer even the same bridge, so many times has Europe' orthe European idea' had to be periodically 'relaunched'. Instead of evenattempting this in broad outline, I will draw attention very briefly to therole played by secretive and unaccountable organisations of members of theEuropean economic and political elites.

One little-reported group, for example, which seems to wield immense influenceis the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). To my knowledge therehave only been two or three reports of this group in the British press, andyet in articulating the demands and interests of the largest and most powerfulEuropean multinational corporations, it surely calls for close study. I suspectthis is the same group as that mentioned in passing in Charles Grant's biographyof Jacques Delors. Delors' arrival as European Commissioner in 198S, he says,could not have occurred at a more propitious moment: he had spent the autumnof 1984 searching for a 'Big Idea' to relaunch the EEC.

'That autumn, in Brussels, Delors had met a group of officials and industrialistsbrought together by Max Kohnstamm, who had been Monnet's chief assistant.After Monnet's death in 1979, Kohnstamm had become one of the guardians ofthe sacred name of federalism. The Kohnstamm group advised Delors to makethe internal market his priority and to lay down a timetable of eight years(the life of two Commissions) for its achievement...... At the same timeWisse Dekker, the chairman of Philips, made several speeches calling forthe 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 EuropeanRound Table of Industrialists (ERT), then we have an example of a continuitybetween the fifties and today. This ERT comprises the chairs/CEOs of theleading European multinational corporations and it is by no means a mereassembly of dignitaries. This is an extremely powerful body. According toresearch conducted by the ASEED collective, its reports feed directly intothe European Commission decision making process. One of its first reports,for example, entitled 'Missing Links', urged the immediate construction ofa series of large-scale transport projects, including the Channel Tunnel.As well as Dekker of Philips, other leading figures in the ERT are Agnelliof Flat, Gyllenhammer of Volvo, and Denys Henderson of ICI.

Theoretical Excursus

A persistent problem with theories of power over the last 20 years has beentheir lack of engagement with empirical evidence, compounded by the demonstrableempirical ignorance of theorists. It is as if every academic feels able todevelop theories about power, and engage in debates it, without any requirementfor relevant information, or at any rate with a tacit assumption that everyoneat has such information.

One possible place to start an attempt to 'theorise' the role of Bilderbergand other international power-elite forums, might be to re-enter an old debateat the beginning of the present century: this is the debate between Leninand Kautsky over imperialism.

Lenin’s theory of imperialism sought to explain the first world warby reference to what he called inter-imperialist rivalries. While this theoryhas 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 betweengeographically-defined regions, and that nation-states act at the behestof nationally-based capitalist classes), it is nevertheless demonstrablyfalse in a number of crucial particulars. For example, one of the difficultiesin Lenin's theory is reconciling it with the increasing interpenetrationof national economies by trans-national capitalist blocs. To put this issuesimply: wars take place between states, but inter-capitalist rivalries donot necessarily coincide with the territories between states, especiallywhere international or trans-national corporations have developed. The materialpresented here, I would suggest, is of just this kind: it shows aninter-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 conceptionwhich explicitly addressed this issue, and can be summed up by his notionof ultra-imperialism (Fennema, 1982). The simple hypothesis is that rivalcapitalist interests may, at least for a time, be able to coalesce into arelatively unified hegemonic bloc. Now this idea of a tendency towardsstabilisation on a global scale may sound unrealistic today, but arguablythis was what was achieved for fifty years, at least in the American-dominatedhalf of the world, after 1945. It could even be said that the demise of theother half permits its universalization. Where are the 'inter-imperialistrivalries in the world today'?

Silence of the Academics

When first asked for a title for this paper, I briefly entertained the ideaof using the above sub-heading, (paraphrasing a recent film-title), and Ido believe it is important to ask why certain topics rather than others aredeemed worthy of investigation. The material presented here is certainly'dated' and therefore unfashionable, but similar information about the presentcould be investigated. It is surprising and somewhat depressing that suchinvestigations 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 establishedsystems of power in society, willing to face personal or professional risksin the pursuit of truth. Maybe they are more like lambs.

Footnotes

(1) The term 'liberal' signifies policies opposed to restrictions oninternational trade. The distinction between 'free trade' and 'protectionism'in international trade does not correspond exactly with the theoreticalopposition of 'competition' and 'monopoly'. None of these concepts havestraightforward empirical reference. The 1992 NAFTA (North American FreeTrade Agreement) for example, is in fact profoundly 'protectionist' in relationto such matters as intellectual property rights (software, patents for seeds,drugs etc.) with elaborate 'rules of origin' designed to keep out foreigncompetitors etc. see Dawkins 1993.

(2) If the Marshall Plan had military objectives (containment of Sovietinfluence) as much as economic ones (creation of markers for US industry),then NATO has a civilian, political and ideological role as much as a militaryone. NATO has been relatively neglected by students of 'supranational'organisations, and it is often Presumed to be just a treaty rather than aquasigovernmental organisation in its own right. Its highest political body,the North Atlantic Council, covers foreign policy issues as well as strictlymilitary questions, and the North Atlantic Assembly works to influence theparliamentary members of individual countries. It falls within the briefof NATO to conduct propaganda and defend states the 'infiltration of ideas'.Few citizens of NATO countries are aware of the whole apparatus to whichmembership commits them - e.g. Plans 10 G and 100-1 under which in 'emergencysituations' 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. OnePolish 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 withcertain of its discrete institutions'. Presumably SIS. See Korbonski p. 20.

(4) Later American participants included Robert MacNamara, US Secretary ofDefence under Kennedy and Johnson (earlier chair of the Ford Motor Company,and later President of the World Bank); and McGeorge Bundy, who worked onthe Marshall Plan, was US National Security Adviser and later special foreignpolicy adviser to Kennedy and Johnson 1960-65, and became President of theFord Foundation 1966-79. His brother, William Bundy, was with the CIA 1951-61and later managed the CFR journal Foreign Affairs from 1979, after workingat the Pentagon 1964-69. He married Dean Acheson's daughter. Finally, allthree 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 moredetails of participants see the essay by Thompson in Sklar ed. 1980, andEringer 1980.

(5) Pinay, who was French Prime Minister in 1951, figures rather allusivelyin Brian Crozier's memoirs (Crozier, 1993 ch. XV) as the eminence grise ofthe controversial 'Pinay Cercle', an anti-communist intelligence outfit inthe 1970s and 80s (Ramsay & Dorril 1986, p. 39 and Teacher 1989).

(6) It is ironic that while the initial research which discovered the existenceof the Bilderberg network and explored its ramifications within the powerstructure of Atlantic capitalism came entirely from Marxist and left-inclinedscholars in the USA, the whole subject has now been virtually taken overby the US far right as the centre piece of its own bizarre world-view. Thesewriters of the far right (Anthony Sutton, Lyndon La Rouche, Spool and theLiberty Lobby etc.) have added virtually nothing to our understanding orknowledge of the phenomenon, and accordingly, are not referenced in thebibliography below. They have, however, contaminated the topic with theirconfusion. Since around the mid-1980s, the American Left has dropped thewhole issue like a hot potato. For a singular exception sec Brandt 1993,which is essentially a response to Bcrlet, 1992.

Bibliography

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' CriticalSociology, 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, PeterA 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 andthe 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, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1990

Grant, Charles Delors, Nicholas Brealey, 1994

Groom. A. J. R. & Taylor, Paul beds.) Frameworks for InternationalCo-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 SussexUniversity Press, 1972

Ramsay, Robin & Dorril, Stephen Lobster 11, April 1986

Ramsay, Robin & Dorril, Stephen 'The Pinay Circle' Lobster 17, 8 November1988

Ramsay, Robin & Dorril Stephen 'In a Common Cause: the AntiCommunistCrusade 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 ReviewPress, 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

Preceeding article is copyright The Lobster, a most readable intelligence orientedjournal from Humberside in North East England

Contact: Robin Ramsay (Dept. W)
214 Westbourne Avenue
Hull HU5 3JB
United Kingdom

UK tel: 01482 447558
Int'l tel: +44 1482 447558

Email:robin@lobster.karoo.co.uk

...continued here - page dedicated to this complete chapter

Download this chapter as a 60 page Word document for printing/sharing

More on this episode - from September 2018 talk - Oosterbeek

As we have already heard, TWO chairmen - former SS officer Prince Bernhardof the Netherlands and Lord Peter Carrington were both heavily involved inthe Nijmegen/Arnhem Operation Market Garden debacle of September 1944 (seebelow).

http://groups.google.com/group/pepis/browse_thread/thread/a26394696535644aand below

For the background watch the fine filmA Bridge TooFar

Sometime over the next decade the name of the Wolfheze Hotel becamea branded Bilderberg Hotel..

Model was the direct opposite equivalent to Allied commanderBernardMontgomery who planned Market Garden and was unjustly criticised forits 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 securityclearance for the Admiraltybut, on the express orders of King George VI wasincluded 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 Urquhartfrom the staff who had come up with serious reservationsabout the operation.The plans of MG were supposedly found by Germans in a crashed glider, sothe SS knew exactly what was planned. But was this a made-up story to coverfor Prince Bernhard's spying in Whitehall? How else did several German generalsin Arnhem & Nijmegen appear to have 'prior knowledge' of the attack?

2. Despite having up to 80 sherman tanks at their disposal - The 40 tankseach 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 Armoureddivision failed to advance after sucessfully securing the Nijmegen road bridgewhich the 10th SS panzer divsion commander had rigged to blow - but it didnot blow up. Heinz Harmel was unprepared for the Nijmegen road bridge tofail 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 Carringtonand the other tanks would have had almost no resistance, a clear run to Arnhemto reinforce Frost's 2nd Battalion just hanging on by their fingernails atArnhem bridge. This is according to OC 10th SS Panzer division Heinz Harmel'sGerman Artillery map for that evening which show there were virtually noGerman forces between Lent and Arnhem. Just a few infantry security picketsin Elst.

3. Brigadier Lathbury of 1st Airborne Division, acting under the commandof the other Urquhart. failed to send several companies of 1st Airbornedivision troops to the Arnhem bridge despite being given a clear route (LionRoute) to the main objective of Market Garden over the radio by Major TonyHibbert who was at the bridge.

Food for thought... Arnhem and Bernhard

by retired Marconi engineer Dave B.

Posted on March 20, 2012 by Admin

If you look at (‘From a Bridge Too Far’):

http://inquiringminds.cc/food-for-thought-arnhem-and-bernhardt-dave-b

http://www.ohiomotorpool.oldmv.com/htm-files/arnhem.htm

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 onthat sunny afternoon on Sunday 17th September. The battalion obviously hasits HQ right there in the Bilderberg Hotel (Wolfheze Hotel).

If you look at the Drop Zones 9and landing zones) on proceeding map the linewas abreast 1st Brigade’s route to Arnhem, at least some of the Brigade.

As you can see the Recce Squadron (yellow) ran straight into the line andhad to double back quicktime. Only 2nd Battalion (Frost) and some of 1stBrigade 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 southernflank but failed to get anywhere near Arnhem and the 1st Battalion had toskirt 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 righttime??? 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 placeto celebrate 10 years later with 1st Bilderberg meeting.

Top German Hermann Abs (Chairman of Deutsche Bank), Hitler’s bankerand 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 realname 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 sleeveat getting all those Brits to gather at this notorious location.

dave

Credits: The Battle For Arnhem – A Bridge Quite Near

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/58485

http://bcfm.org.uk/2012/03/16/17/friday-drivetime-62/15420

Recent revelations that show Field Marshal Montgomery’s Operation MarketGarden, in September 1944, aimed at severing German supply lines on the WesternFront should have worked. It was early morning in Holland on Sunday 17thSeptember 1944 and as the gliders and paratroopers poured down along a sixtymile corridor to hold the bridges. The furthest bridge from the front lineat Arnhem became the focus of attention as and the biggest airborne operationin history unfolded. Was it really ‘A Bridge Too Far’ as the titleof Cornelius Ryan’s book and Robert E. Levine’s famous film imply?Or could the tanks and ground troops of XXX corps have gotten through torelieve the surrounded British paratroopers? With Arnhem only 10 kilometres,a 30 minute drive away and a virtually clear road ahead – GeneralHorrocks’ M4 Sherman tanks inexplicably halted for 17 hours. By thetime the tanks started rolling at lunchtime the next day British paratroopershad run out of ammunition, been forced to surrender and German Panzer 5 &Tiger tank reinforcements had arrived to block the way. The Nijmegen bridgeheadwas established around 19:00hrs, 3 hours later, at 22:00hrs that eveningthe British were forced to surrender at the Arnhem bridge. So paratroopersof the 1st Airborne division at Arnhem bridge may have been relieved in thenick of time and war in Europe could have been over six months earlier, byChristmas 1944. We look at Cornelius Ryan’s book ‘A Bridge TooFar’ as well as Joseph E. Levine’s film of the same name. Interviewswith: Captain T. Moffatt Burriss, author of ‘Strike and Hold’ whowas commander of i-company, 504th regiment, 82nd Airborne division duringthe legendary Waal river crossing; Robert Kershaw author of ‘It NeverSnows In September’ who interviewed 10th SS Panzer DivisionBrigadeführer Heinz Harmel, commander of the German defence of the Nijmegenand Arnhem bridges; Major Tony Hibbert who was a senior officer of 2nd batallion1st brigade, British 1st Airborne division at the Arnhem bridge; Tim Lynchauthor of ‘Operation Market Garden: The Legend of the Waal Crossing’;Sir Brian Urquhart, army intelligence officer in the run-up to the operationhe was critical of it and transferred before it began… but later becameSecretary General of the newly formed United Nations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99ppJ2QI1nQ

http://www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6765

1900 hrs Wed 20th Sept 1944, Nijmegen - Can XXX Corps make it to Arnhem?My scenarios for two Market Garden wargames

Friday's show about Operation Market Garden has several Bilderberg references.Here is a more comprehensive exposition of the three bizarre Bilderberg/MarketGarden links: Sunday 17th September 1944's Operation Market Garden andBilderberg

Horrocks and Monty with Bilderberg founder & former SS officer PrinceBernhard of the Netherlands

1) Firstly Despite being a former SS officer Prince Bernhard of the Netherlandswas actually with Field Marshal Montgomery, General Brian Horrocks etc. inWhitehall influencing planning intelligence at the highest level in the runup to Market Garden in September 1944. The Royal Navy and RAF did not trustBernhard but it seems King George VI insisted he had to be trusted by theArmy as he could liase with the Dutch resistance. Trouble with that was heknew very little about Holland, he was a German, brought up in Bavaria whomarried into the Dutch royal family in 1937. Sir Brian Urquhart makes referenceto 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 GrenadierGuards captain and radio operator in the second squadron of tanks to crossthe Nijmegen road bridge. Because he would not go on to Arnhem after thebridge was taken at 18:30hrs on the evening of Wednesday 20th September hewas threatened at gunpoint by Captain T. Moffat Burriss of 82nd Airbornewho ordered Carrington to get moving. Confronted by Burriss' tommy gun pointingat his head Carrington pulled the lid down on his tank and stayed in thereall night. Burriss had just lost half his company seizing the north end ofthe Nijmegen bridge and now the advance had ground to a halt right at thecrucial moment.
At that point evidence suggests the road from Nijmegen to Arnhem was clearof any force that could stop a tank - this we know because of an artillerymap passed to parachute regiment liason officer and historian Robert Kershawby CO of the 10th SS Panzer Division Heinz Harmel before he died. Artillerymaps are very reliable because they show exact dispositions of friendly forcesso the German artillery does not fire on their own people.
There is also the fact that Harmel was expecting to be able to dramaticallyblow up the Nijmegen Road bridge that evening when the first British tankscrossed it. When he tried to do this around 18:30hrs the charges failed togo off and this necessitated bringing his forces down from Arnhem to containthe forces he expected to be pouring over the captured Nijmegen bridge atany moment. Trouble was the Arnhem bridge was still being denied to him byColonel Frost's regiment who held the Arnhem bridge until their defencescollapsed around 22:00hrs that evening.
You may have noticed from the timings here that the mighty British GuardsArmoured division had precisely 3 hours to make the 9km drive to Arnhem whereFrost's men were hanging on by their fingernails. That would have taken LordCarrington's M4 Sherman about 30 minutes to get there. By 22:00hrs Frost'sposition was being overrun so why did Peter Carrington, Allan Adair and BrianHorrocks not send one or two battle-groups of tanks through the securitypickets which were half way to Arnhem in Elst to relieve the beleaguredparatroopers in the nick of time?
Harmel was later to say "The four tanks who crossed the bridge made a mistakewhen they stayed in Lent. If they had carried on their advance, it wouldhave been all over for us. ... Why did they not drive on to Elst insteadof staying in Lent? ... At this instant there were no German armored forcesavailable to block Elst. This gave us time to get Kampfgruppe Knaust downthere." The time Horrocks gave them was in fact over seventeen hours, XXXcorps did not move out until 12:30hrs the next day by which time the roadwas 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 Bristish1st Airborne division were headquartered in the Hartenstein hotel, surroundedby Germans. The SS called the allied pocket "Der Hexenkessel" which means"Witches Cauldron" because, the lightly armed paratroopers in Oosterbeekwho were short of ammunition were facing rockets, flamethrower tanks, Tigerand other heavy tanks as well as anti-aircraft guns. Only a tiny proportionof the British Paras. managed to get back to the allied lines alive. ThisOosterbeek 'witches' cauldron' was the venue, ten years later, for the firstever secret Bilderberg meeting at Prince Bernhard's Bilderberg hotel inOosterbeek.

http://groups.google.com/group/pepis/browse_thread/thread/a5c75e4760cba030

http://bcfm.org.uk/2012/03/16/17/friday-drivetime-62/15420

http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/58485

Nazi finance & continuity network - rare book about Hitler's No. 2 whose death was faked in 1972

Download the eBook for free below

A decisively powerful network of corporate entities run by hardenedSS veterans, the Bormann group constitutes what one veteran banker termed“the greatest concentration of money power under a single control inhistory.” The foundation of the organization’s clout ismoney—lots and lots of money. Controlling German big business and, throughinvestments, much of the rest of the world’s economy, theorganization was the repository for the stolen wealth of Europe, estimatedby British intelligence to have totaled more than $180 billion by the endof 1943 (not including the money taken from Greece and the formerSoviet Union, nor that taken after 1943.) [For more on the global economicsignificance of the Bormann group, see—among other programs—FTR#99.]This organization literally constitutes a postwar “UndergroundReich” with (as discussed in FTR#155) a governing hierarchy composedof the sons and daughters of SS men, holding military ranks andtitles from the Third Reich.

http://spitfirelist.com/books/martin-bormann-nazi-in-exile/

Read the book here

Download or read it here in Word document - PDF - or Rich Textformats

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 liftingto reveal glistening mountainside acres of wine grapes and the string offortresses that dominate the hillsides and vineyard villages on the roadfrom Colmar­fortresses old when Joan of Arc was young. A Mercedes- Benz,flying Nazi swastika and SS flags from the front bumpers, was moving at highspeed through columns of German infantry marching toward Colmar from wherethe command car had come. A mountainous region, some of World War II’sbitterest fighting was to take place there as winter approached, once Americandivisions had bypassed Paris and moved through Metz into the Colmar Gap.

The staff car had left Colmar at first light for Strasbourg, carrying SSObergruppenfuehrer Scheid, who held the rank of lieutenant general in theWaffen SS, as well as the title of Dr. Scheid, director of the industrialfirm of Hermadorff & Schenburg Company. While the beauty of the rollingcountryside was not lost on Dr. Scheid, his thoughts were on the meetingof important German businessmen to take place on his arrival at the HotelMaison Rouge in Strasbourg. Reichsleiter Martin Bormann himself had orderedthe conference, and although he would not physically be present he had confidedto Dr. Scheid, who was to preside, “The steps to be taken as a resultof this meeting will determine the postwar future of Germany.” TheReichsleiter had added, “German industry must realize that the war cannotnow be won, and must take steps to prepare for a postwar commercial campaignwhich will in time insure the economic resurgence of Germany.” It wasAugust 10, 1944. The Mercedes-Benz bearing SS Obergruppenfuehrer Scheid movedslowly now through the narrow streets of Strasbourg. Dr. Scheid noticed thatthis was a most agreeable city, one to return to after the war. It was thecity where in 1792 the stirring Marsellaise was composed by Rouget de Lisle,ostensibly for the mayor’s 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 sincethe formation of the two nations, Germany and France. After World War I,the Treaty of Versailles restored Alsace-Lorraine to France, but after thefall of France in World War II the Germans reannexed these 5,600 square milesof territory, and life went on as usual, except for the 18,000 Alsatianswho 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 desFrance-Bourgeois. Dr. Scheid, briefcase in hand, entered the lobby and ascendedin the elevator to the conference suite reserved for his meeting. Methodicallyhe circled the room, greeting each of the twelve present, then took his placeat the head of the conference table. Even the pads and pencils before eachman had been checked; Waffen SS technicians had swept the entire room, inspectingfor hidden microphones and miniature transmitters. As an additional precaution,all suites flanking the conference suite had been held unfilled, as had thefloors above and below, out of bounds for the day. Lunch was to be servedin the conference suite by trusted Waffen SS stewards. Those present, allthirteen of them, could be assured that the thorough precautions would safeguardthem all, even the secretary who was to take the minutes, later to be typedwith a copy sent by SS courier to Bormann.

A transcript of that meeting is in my possession. It is a captured Germandocument from the files of the U.S. Treasury Department, and states who waspresent and what was said, as the economy of the Third Reich was projectedonto a postwar profit-seeking track.

Present were Dr. Kaspar representing Krupp, Dr. Tolle representingRöchling, Dr. Sinceren representing Messerschmitt, Drs. Kopp, Vier,and Beerwanger representing Rheinmetall, Captain Haberkorn and Dr. Ruherepresenting Bussing, Drs. Ellenmayer and Kardos representing Volkswagenwerk,engineers Drose, Yanchew, and Koppshem representing various factories inPosen, Poland (Drose, Yanchew, & Co., Brown-Boveri, Herkuleswerke,Buschwerke, and Stadtwerke); Dr. Meyer, an official of the German Naval Ministryin Paris; and Dr. Strossner of the Ministry of Armament, Paris.

Dr. Scheid, papers from his briefcase arranged neatly on the table beforehim, stated that all industrial matériel in France was to be evacuatedto Germany immediately. “The battle of France is lost to Germany,”he admitted, quoting Reichsleiter Bormann as his authority, “and nowthe defense of the Siegfried Line (and Germany itself) is the main problem.. . . From now on, German industry must take steps in preparation for a postwarcommercial campaign, with each industrial firm making new contacts and allianceswith foreign firms. This must be done individually and without attractingany suspicion. However, the party and the Third Reich will stand behind everyfirm with permissive and financial support.” He assured those presentthat the frightening law of 1933 known as Treason Against the Nation, whichmandated the death penalty for violation of foreign exchange regulationsor concealing of foreign currency, was now null and void, on direct orderof Reichsleiter Bormann.

Dr. Scheid also affirmed, “The ground must now be laid on the financiallevel for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after thewar.” As an example of the kind of support that had been most usefulto Germany in the past, Dr. Scheid cited the fact that “patents forstainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc., New York, andthe Krupp Company of Germany, jointly, and that of the United States SteelCorporation, 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-AmerikaLine as typical firms that had been especially effective in protecting Germaninterests abroad. He gave New York addresses to the twelve men. Glancingat his watch, Dr. Scheid asked for comments from each of the twelve aroundthe table. Then he adjourned the morning session for lunch.

At his signal, soldier stewards brought in a real Strasbourg lunch. On along side table they placed plates of pâté de foie gras, matelote,noodles, sauerkraut, knuckles of ham, sausages, and onion tarts, along withbottles of Coq au Riesling from nearby wineries. Brandy and cigars were alsoset out and the stewards left the room, closing the doors quietly as guardsstood 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 thenew industrial goals for the postwar years.

A smaller conference in the afternoon was presided over by Dr. Bosse of theGerman Armaments Ministry. It was attended only by representatives of Hecko,Krupp, and Röchling. Dr. Bosse restated Bormann’s belief that thewar was all but lost, but that it would be continued by Germany until certaingoals to insure the economic resurgence of Germany after the war had beenachieved. He added that German industrialists must be prepared to financethe 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 toindustrialists so that each can establish a secure postwar foundation inforeign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries mustbe placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empirecan be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required,” hecontinued, “that the large factories in Germany establish small technicaloffices or research bureaus which will be absolutely independent and haveno connection with the factory. These bureaus will receive plans and drawingsof new weapons, as well as documents which they will need to continue theirresearch. These special offices are to be established in large cities wheresecurity is better, although some might be formed in small villages nearsources of hydroelectric power, where these party members can pretend tobe studying the development of water resources for benefit of any Alliedinvestigators.”

Dr. Bosse stressed that knowledge of these technical bureaus would be heldonly 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 toreestablish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid fortheir effort and cooperation by concessions and orders.”

At both morning and afternoon conferences, it was emphasized that the existingprohibition against the export of capital “is now completely withdrawnand replaced by a new Nazi policy, in which industrialists with governmentassistance (Bormann to be the guiding leader) will export as much of theircapital as possible, capital meaning money, bonds, patents, scientists, andadministrators.”

Bosse urged the industrialists to proceed immediately to get their capitaloutside Germany. “The freedom thus given to German industrialists furthercements their relations with the party by giving them a measure of protectionin future efforts at home and overseas.”

From this day, German industrial firms of all rank were to begin placingtheir funds­and, wherever possible, key manpower­ abroad, especiallyin neutral countries. Dr. Bosse advised that “two main banks can beused 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 whichfor a five percent commission will buy property in Switzerland for Germanfirms, 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 becondemned as war criminals. However, in cooperation with the industrialists,it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important memberswith various German factories as technical experts or members of its researchand designing offices.”

The meeting adjourned late. As the participants left, Dr. Bosse placed acall to Martin Bormann in Berlin over SS lines. The conversation was cryptic,merely a report that all industrialists at the one-day Strasbourg conferencehad agreed to the new policy of “flight capital” as initiated bythe 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 Germanyduring the years of the Third Reich. Its operations in Germany included controlof 380 companies with factories, power installations, and mines, as wellas vast chemical establishments. It operated in 93 countries and the sunnever set on I.G. Farben, which had a participation, both acknowledged andconcealed, in over 500 firms outside Germany. They grew as the Third Reichdid, and as German armies occupied each country in Europe they were followedby Farben technicians who built further factories and expanded the I.G.investment to RM (Reichsmarks) 7 billion. The Farben cartel agreements involvingtrade and the related use of its chemical patents also numbered over 2,000,including such major industrial concerns as Standard Oil of New Jersey (nowExxon), the Aluminum Company of America, E.I. du Font de Nemours, Ethyl ExportCorporation, Imperial Chemical Industries (Great Britain), Dow Chemical Company,Rohm & Haas, Etablissments Kuhlman (France), and the Mitsui interestsof Japan.

I.G. Farben was a formidable ally for Reichsleiter Bormann in his plans forthe postwar economic rebirth of Germany. In a telephone conversation withDr. von Schnitzler, Bormann asked what would the loss of factories in Franceand the other occupied countries mean to German industry in general and toI.G. in particular. Dr. von Schnitzler said he believed the technical dependenceof 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 Europeanchemical business. “They will need the constant technical help ofI.G.’s scientific laboratories as they do not own appropriate installationswithin themselves,” he further told Bormann, adding that he and otherindustrialists such as Hermann Röchling “do not think much ofHitler’s recent declaration of a scorched-earth policy for Germany.Destruction of our factories will surely inhibit Germany’s recoveryin the postwar world,” he affirmed.

Bormann pondered this exchange with von Schnitzler. It was then that hedetermined to countermand Hitler’s order for the ruthless destructionof German industry. He was aware also that the Gauleiters, the regional politicalsupervisors and area com- manders of the party, who reported to him as partychief, shared the same view as expressed by Dr. von Schnitzler.

However, Bormann waited nearly four weeks until the right moment came togo against Hitler’s directive. It came when Albert Speer, minister forarmaments and war production, sent a teletype on September 5, 1944, toheadquarters for Hitler’s attention. In this message, Speer outlinedthe realistic reasons why industrial plants should not be destroyed; Bormannlost no time sending this on to all the Gauleiters of Germany with his ownimperative: “On behalf of the Fuehrer I herewith transmit to you acommunication from Reichsminister Speer. Its provisos are to be observedstrictly and unconditionally.”

Speer had commented, “Even Bormann had played along with me. He seemedto be more aware than Hitler of the fearful consequences of totaldevastation.” Speer also noted, in this month of September 1944, that“Hitler’s authority in the party was no longer what it had been.”

Such authority had long since passed quietly to Reichsleiter Bormann, whohad succeeded in outmaneuvering all the old gang: Goering, Goebbels, Himmler,the various generals, and Speer, who was told in 1944 by Hitler always todeal directly with Bormann on all matters. As Speer put it, “I had lostfor good.” He was embittered and envious, and his feelings were to colorevery utterance he made about the Reichsleiter. Martin Bormann was now theleader in fact of Germany.

Hitler, exhausted, drained of the charisma of the glory days of the thirtiesand the conquest years of the early forties, was going through the gesturesof 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, wasat all times at Hitler’s side, impassive and cool. His be-all and end-allwas to guide Hitler, and now to make the decisions that would lead to theeventual rebirth of his country. Hitler, his intuitions at peak level despitehis crumbling physical and mental health in the last year of the Third Reich,realized this and approved of it. “Bury your treasure,” he advisedBormann, “for you will need it to begin a Fourth Reich.” That isprecisely what Bormann was about when he set in motion the “flightcapital” scheme August 10, 1944, in Strasbourg. The treasure, the goldenring, he envisioned for the new Germany was the sophisticated distributionof national and corporate assets to safe havens throughout the neutral nationsof the rest of the world.

Martin Bormann knew in his heart that the war in Europe was over when Normandywas lost. The day Hitler’s troops were defeated at the Falaise Gap wasthe day he ordered swing industrialists of Germany to Strasbourg to hearhis plans for Germany’s future.

Society’s natural survivors, French version, who had served the ThirdReich as an extension of German industry, would continue to do so in theperiod of postwar trials, just as they had survived the war, occupation,and liberation. These were many of the French elite, the well-born, thepropertied, the titled, the experts, industrialists, businessmen, bureaucrats,bankers. On the other hand, the intellectuals, the writers, the propagandistsfor the Germans, and the deputies of the Third Republic were among thosepurged with a heavy hand. The number of Frenchmen who were part of the resistanceduring 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 weretried, 767 being executed for treason or contact with the enemy in time ofwar. Sentenced to prison terms were 38,000, who also endured “loss ofnational dignity”–disenfranchisem*nt and ineligibility to holdpublic office. Even before any arrests and trials could take place, another4,500 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 entirenation could not be brought to trial. Only a few years before, there hadbeen many a sincere and well-meaning Frenchman­as in Belgium, England,and throughout Europe­who believed National Socialism to be the waveof the future, indeed, the only hope for curing the many desperate social,political, and economic ills of the time. France, along with other occupiedcountries, did contribute volunteers for the fight against Russia. Then therewere many other Frenchmen, the majority, who resignedly felt there was noway the Germans could be pushed back across the Rhine.

I have been passed this large attendee list - pleaseclick here and be patient to downloadwhat is a 6Mb PDF file

The Single Market programme was the 1980's relaunch of the economic andultimately political integration of Europe. So-called Father of the EU,[see Mike Peters' paper for more on his role]JeanMonnet, had always felt it crucial to rein back big business. The singlemarket programme turned this policy on its head. The relaunch document (seebelow) was prepared by Philips Industries in Holland and researched by unnamedPhilips staff. The staff were told to "imagine yourselves to be dictatorsof Europe."

Few realise how pivotal the 2000 Bilderberg chairman, Viscount Etienne Davignon,was in this process. As European Commissioner for Industry and the InternalMarket from 1977 to 1980 he wasperfectlyplaced to put big businessin the driving seat of European policy. In 1985, as Industry Commissioner,he challenged Pehr Gyllenhammar, CEO of Volvo, (also administrator of UnitedTechnologies, Vice President of the Aspen Institute and one of the five partnersof Kissinger Associates) to organise a group of the top European businessmento lobby the Commission. Davignon argued that the Commission would beobliged to respond to the demands of some of the largest Europeanindustrialists. The Gyllenhammar group was to become the highly influentialEuropean Round Table of Industrialists or ERT, drawing up policy for Europe.

Extract from: The Politics of Big Business in the Single Market Program, by Maria L. Green, The American University, Visiting Fellow, CSIA, Harvard University.

School of International Service, The American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20016.

Paper presented for the European Community Studies Association, Third Biennial International Conference, May 27 1993, Washington DC.

This is an essential document for anyone curious about the origins of the present policies and direction of the European Union. The above paper has the following structure. The opening section of the most relevant chapter, IV, is reproduced below.

Introduction
I. The Early Years: The Rise of the Multinationals in EC Policymaking
II. The Origins of the ERT: Setting the Agenda for a New Europe
III. The ERT and the French Connection
IV. The Dekker Paper, the Political Agenda and a Constituency for Delors [extract below]
V. The Delors Commission's Policy Alternative and the Eurpean Council Vote
VI. Ensuring the SEA's Implementation: The Internal Market Support Group (Committee)
VII. Conclusions

IV. The Dekker Paper, the Political Agenda and a Constituency for Delors - extract

Repackaging the message: The Dekker Paper

On January 11, 1985, in Brussels, Wisse Dekker, CEO of Phillips, unveileda plan, "Europe 1990", before an audience of 500 people including many ofthe newly appointed EC commissioners. The plan laid out in precise termsthe steps needed in four key areas - trade facilitation (elimination of borderformalities), opening up of public procurement markets, harmonization oftechnical standards, and fiscal harmonization (elimination of the fiscalVAT frontiers) -- to open up a European Market in five years. For the firsttime a plan was produced which identified some 50 measures needed to eliminatenon-tariff barriers to trade and to relaunch the European Market. The Dekkerpaper was revolutionary -- not only because it was proposed by the head ofa major multinational, but because it produced what had escaped nationaland European policymakers -- a simple plan for a unified market.

The Dekker paper was an internal Philips project led by Dekker's governmentaffairs representative in Brussels, Coen Ramaer. It was the result of thecompany'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 specificsto the French President's plan. Moreover, when the Commission did producea comprehensive package of proposals in late 1984, there was no outpouringof support for the initiative. The Commission document developed by CommissionerNarjes listed hundreds of pre-existing pieces of legislation -- ranging fromstandardisation to social actions to environmental issues -- deemed necessaryfor the creation of an internal market. Business leaders, while pleased thata package was produced, found the Commission package "unwieldy" and lacking"a precise time-table." Moreover, there was no strategy to ensure itsimplementation and no rationale for industrial growth. It became apparentto the heads of multinationals that industry needed to produce its own concreteprogram.

With Dekker's support, Ramaer assembled four Philips experts who had longdealt with the four key areas later outlined in the Dekker speech. As Ramaerexplains, 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 theCommission to discuss the project and to hammer out key problems. Dekkerstressed to Ramaer that the proposals had to be complete -- he did not wantthe outcome to be simply another speech on the necessity of European integration.

"Europe 1990" was not simply another speech. In addition to introducing aprecise agenda, the paper introduced a number of new conceptualisations ofwhat a unified European market might entail. In the trade facilitation area,for example, the "ultimate goal" of the plan was to create "frontiers withoutformalities for goods traffic and the replacement of paper documents by datatransmission via a telecommunications network used by traders, transporters,banks and statistical and tax authorities..." Of course, to implement thisstrategy, member states would also be required to allow for the developmentof a trans-European telecommunications network. The paper left little doubtof the importance of creating a united European market. As Dekker noted inhis introduction: "The survival of Europe is in fact at stake."

When the "Europe 1990" plan was presented, it was not for Brussels' consumptionalone. Dekker sent the plan, along with a letter, to the heads of governmentand state of the European Community. One letter went to The Rt Hon MargaretThatcher, January 7th 1985, from Dr. Wisse Dekker. The letter opens as follows"Europe's industries - both large and small - will have little future ifthe common market is not created as intended by the Treaties of Rome. Thiswe all know..." Dekker concludes by submitting "these proposals for theconsideration of you and your government, hoping that you will promote theaction necessary to get Europe out of the deadlock in which it has been fora number of years. You will agree that this is an urgent matter. There islittle time left to correct the consequences of a lack of dynamism in thepast decade.

[from footnote - Margaret Thatcher refused to meet with ERT who were promoting'Europe 2000'.]

Alfred Mendez <alfred.mendes@virgin.net>

http://www.spectrezine.org

[See Also Alfred Mendez' piece 'THE MONEY-TRADERS GLOBAL NETWORK' on my BIS page]

Any research into the subject of the Common Market is immediately confrontedby a veil of confusing acronyms: E-this, E-that and E-the other. True, theCommon Market - or the EEC, or the EC, or the EU (it transpires that theyare all the same at different stages of evolvement) - must be one of themost complex, if not the most complex bureaucracy ever created. That complexityand the constant political bickering over its very raison d'etre has tendedto distract public attention away from a proper understanding of it - andto achieve this understanding, it is essential to recapitulate the eventsleading to its birth - viewed from within the context of the political/economicsituation of the post-World War 2 period

The political situation was one of ideological confrontation between theWest and the USSR: between Capitalism and Marxism (the question as to whetherthe 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 andthe USSR had just emerged from a war in which they had been allies, but itmust be recalled that this alliance had been one of circ*mstance and convenience,as events in the immediate pre-war period clearly demonstrated. The Frenchand the British had favoured a policy of appeasem*nt towards Germany, whereasthe USSR - well aware that it was Hitler's target (see Mein Kampf) - favoureda 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 thatthe French Foreign Minister, Yvon Delbos, had told him that the Soviet Ambassadorhad just informed him (Delbos) that "..if France should begin seriousnegotiations with Germany, the Soviet Union would come to terms with Germanyat once". That France and Britain did not heed that warning until Germanyhad invaded Czechoslovakia - when by then it was too late - can only be explainedby the fact that their policy of appeasem*nt was governed by the anti-communistbias they shared with Germany. They were certainly in no position to claimthat they had not been warned when, in August 1939, the Soviet-Germannon-aggression Pact was signed! It is necessary at this point to recall thatthe intellectual dichotomy between Capitalism and Marxism of the late nineteenthcentury had become political confrontation with the advent of the BolshevikRevolution in 1917. This invalidates the popularised view of the Cold Waras being a post-WW 2 phenomenon.

Another popular misconception is that at the end of the war it was the USSRthat had reneged on decisions reached by the Allies (The Big Three) at theYalta Conference in February 1945 - particularly over the question of thefuture of Poland. Indeed, this was precisely the reason given, more thanonce, 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 closerlook. The American Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius (FDR's right-handman at Yalta) later records: "The Soviet Union made more concessions to theUnited 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 inits own despite, more solidly that the Soviet Government.". Given thisbackground, it is extraordinary that on the 23rd of April 1945, a fortnightafter Roosevelt's death and while Molotov was in America en route to theFounding Conference of the UN, Truman summoned him (Molotov) to the WhiteHouse and berated him (in Missouri mule-driver's language, to quote the columnistDrew Pearson), accusing the Soviets of failing to adhere to the Yalta agreements,agreements that had been reached only two months previously - and the warwas still being fought! (It is not difficult to imagine what Truman's responseto the Soviets would have been had the roles of the protagonists in thissituation been reversed: mule-driver's language would most certainly havebeen used!). Furthermore, the following month, immediately after VE Day,Truman cancelled Lend-Lease aid to the USSR, a country that had pledged atYalta 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 atomicbomb on Hiroshima, without previously notifying their Soviet ally of theirintention so to do.

So why this public switch in America's attitude? It must be appreciated thatthe US was then (as it still is) a corporate state. In his first two yearsin office, of the 125 administrative posts appointed by Truman: 49 were bankers,industrialists and financiers; 17 were corporate lawyers; and 31 werehigh-ranking military officers. True, he had inherited a similarly orientedadministration from Roosevelt, but the war had been profitable enough tosedate the latter's corporate cohorts - and Roosevelt an excellent diplomat.Now, the European war was over, Roosevelt dead, and a successfully testedatomic bomb to hand. And when it is recalled that in July 1941, Truman, onlearning of the German invasion of the USSR, had stated that: " if we seethat Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia; and if Russia iswinning we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many aspossible." (as reported in the New York Times on the 24th of July 1941),then the Americans' actions noted above are comprehensible. There would certainlybe no more co-operation with the Red Enemy!

Talk of international unity was relegated to the posturings of diplomatsand officials within the halls of the UN - much as it had been under theLeague of Nations between the wars. European integration was the call heardmore 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 (mainlyCatholic) overtones - hardly surprising given the Vatican's centuries-longdominion over Europe under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire which, inan historical sense, had not long ended. The Pan-European Union (Pan Europa)formed by the Habsburgian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1923 was sucha one. During the war there had been other instances of movement towardsEuropean unity or federation which, because of their common aim, contributedsomething towards the eventual birth of the Common Market - even though itmay not have been of a direct nature. After all, there would be the inevitableintermingling of ideas of those participating within the various groups formed.The call by André Malraux and Georges Bidault in 1941 for a post-warfederal style European New Deal - excluding the Soviet Union - was such aone. There were others, but there was no possibilty of fulfilment beforewar's end, anway.

At war's end, the West European nations emerged economically bankrupted;the USSR with its infrastructure decimated; and America with three-quartersof the world's invested capital and two-thirds of the world's industrialcapacity (thanks in no small measure to the war). On the one hand, a groupof nations in desperate need of reconstruction - and on the other hand arich nation with the capacity to satisfy that need. On the face of it, theproblem so posited carried within it a built-in solution - but there wasone main obstacle to such a resolution: namely, one of those nations wasthe USSR. The problem here for corporate America was that, although it hadno intention of acceding to the Soviet's request for assistance, both countrieswere still part of the Big Three Alliance. Indeed, at the Potsdam Conferencein mid-july 1945, the USSR had acceded to the American's call for theestablishment of a Council of Ministers which was duly set up, and althoughrelations between West and East became more strained with each subsequentForeign ministerial meeting, peace treaties with the ex-Nazi satellite nations(Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary and Romania) were signed by the Big-Threein October 1946.

To appreciate more fully the events that followed, it must be recalled thatBritain at the end of the war had, by military intervention, supplanted thepopular left-wing Greek movement EAM with the right-wing dictatorship ofTsaldaris - and had thereby found itself enmeshed in a civil war it couldno longer afford to finance. On the 24th of February 1947 it notified Americaof its intention to withdraw from Greece, and Truman immediately told ClarkClifford, 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 TrumanDoctrine Speech.

The next Foreign ministers meeting in Moscow, beginning on the 10th of March1947, turned out to be a critical one in East-West relations. In the afterglowof the Satellite Peace Treaties signed some 5 months previously, the negotiatorsand staff met in Moscow in a hopeful mood to discuss such questions as Germanunity, disarmament, and an end to the Soviet occupation of Austria. Aseye-witness correspondent Howard K. Smith wrote: " Molotov proved uncommonlyconciliatory in the opening discussion on rules and procedure and yieldedhis own suggestions first to those of Marshall, then to those of Bevin. TheRussians had undoubtedly assumed that all was well and that things wouldgo according to prescription. Stalin even told Secretary of State Marshallthat ..'these were only the first skirmishes and brushes of recconnaisanceforces'..Then, right on top of the Conference - two days after it had opened- burst the bombshell of the Truman doctrine speech in which President Trumanhad said that 'nearly every nation must choose between' the two worlds. Itsounded like an ultimatum to the rest of Europe to be with us or be countedagainst us. That wiped the smiles off the Russian's faces. "

That had, indeed, been Truman's message to his Congress - and the USSR. Nowthe main obstacle to the flow of American capital investment into Europehad been removed and was now to be activated by means of the Marshall Planas proclaimed by Marshall at Harvard University 3 months later on the 5thof June 1947. This speech called upon the Europeans to draw up plans foreconomic recovery which the Americans would then finance. He had also statedin his speech that: " our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine,but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos". But in saying this hadhe forgotten that two months before, as later revealed by Walt Rostrow (SpecialAssistant to the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europefrom 1947 to 1949): " On April the 29th, the day after his report to thenation on the failure of the Moscow Conference, Secretary Marshall instructedthe Policy Planning Staff to prepare a general plan for American aid in thereconstruction of Western Europe "? No mention here of Eastern Europe orthe USSR. But in any case, had not the United Nations been created with justsuch a scenario in mind? So why by-pass it? Again,Walt Rostow:"..there waseven in being an organisation dedicated to European economic co-operation- the Economic Commission for Europe - the ECE was, however, an organisationof the United Nations, with Soviet and Eastern European countries as members.Its very existence posed a basic question. Should an effort be made to embraceall of Europe in a new enterprise of reconstruction, or should the lessonof the Moscow Conference be read as indicating that the only realisticalternative was for the West to accept the split and to strengthen the areaoutside Stalin's grip? ".(Remember, Rostow had served in the ECE). This decisionto by-pass the UN aroused the suspicions of the Soviets, suspicions thatwere confirmed at the Paris Conference of the Committee of European EconomicCo-operation (CEEC) called in July 1947 to discuss the administration ofMarshall aid. Molotov walked out after two days attendance.

A closer look at Marshall's planning staff is revealing. The committee chargedwith formulating the Marshall Plan was as follows: Chairman - Henry Stimson(ex-Sec. of State & war; Wall st. lawyer; Dir. of Council on ForeignRelations); 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 ofex-Pres. GE); David Dubinsky (Labor Leader). The composition of this planninggroup confirms what has already been referred to: that the American executiveadministration had, since the mid-thirties been heavily staffed with corporateexecutives - men who, because they were unaccountable to the democratic processesof the country, could more readily act in their own corporate interests.Interests, moreover, that were co-ordinated to a high degree by interlinkedmembership of numerous advisory councils, Foundations and other forms ofquangoes whose common affinity was obeisance to Profit.

Here, two points need to be emphasised: the importance that America attachedto the Marshall Plan, and the fact that the Common Market could not haveevolved into the form it subsequently adopted without the Marshall aid. TheUS Congress duly authorized this aid by passing the Economic Co-operationAct (ECA) on the 3rd of April 1948, and Paul Hoffman (Studebaker, Ford Foundation& co-founder of the Committee for Economic Development in 1942) wassubsequently appointed Administrator of the aid program - and since ECA approvalwas required before such aid funds could be supplied, this allowed US plannersto influence directly the direction of economic change in Europe.

Meamwhile, as a result of the above-mentioned CEEC Conference in Paris, theOrganisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) was formed in orderto determine the allocation of Marshall aid. The American desire was fora more integrated organisation than the Europeans were prepared to accept.As Paul Hoffman put it: "The substance of such integration would be the formationof a large single market within such quantative restrictions of movementof goods, monetary barriers to the flow of payments and eventually all tarrifsare permanently swept away". This was a scenario within which corporate Americacould move its capital at will, and, as such, a statement reflecting blatantself interest. Indeed, this message was further driven home by another ECAofficial, Richard Bissel, at whose instigation the OEEC set up the EuropeanPayments Union (EPU) in September 1950 in order to facilitate intra-Europeantrade, and provide a basis for European integration and monetary union. (Oneinteresting point here: good ecenomist he may have been, in1950, Bissel wasno military strategist when, in 1961, as CIA Deputy Director of Planning,he oversaw the Cuban Bay-of-Pigs fiasco!). The Europeans, some of whom werestill in the time-warp of Empire, and reluctant to relinquish any of theirindividual sovereign rights, opposed further integration. This not only meantthat the aid became a scramble for dollars, but, more crucially , posed anobstacle to the American's aim as laid out by Hoffman. This called for achange of mind on the part of the dissedent Europeans, which would eventuallybe accomplished primarily through economic necessity - but also by alittle-help-from-my-friends. Help that, initially, would be of a non-governmentalnature, given the already noted opposition of governments whose hands, inany 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 aftermathof the war as a result of earlier calls for European Union.

The earliest of these groups, and one which was to play a significant rolein alleviating any discord among the Europeans, was the Independent Leaguefor Economic Co-operation (ILEC) - still in existence today, but now knownas the European League for Economic Co-operation). This lobby group, ostensiblymotivated by its desire to find an economic solution to Europes' problems- as implied by its title - was responsible for the subsequent establishmentin May 1949 of the Council of Europe (COE) which, contrary to the aspirationsof those who had laid the foundation for it at the Congress for Europe theprevious year, ended up as a purely consultative body with no economic mandate,due primarily to the reluctance of Britain and the Scandinavians (as notedabove). Be that as it may, the COE was established in Strasbourg with allthe key Europeans onboard - and is still in existence today. Indeed, it isoften 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 understandingof the above, it is necessary to take a closer look at the means by whichthe 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 warranta biography. Suffice it to say here that, as a result of comprehensive politicaldealings in both Europe and the New World stretching from pre-WW 1 to post-WW2, he had become the archetypal broker - an eminence grise. In Sir EdwardBeddington-Behren's words: " I remember in the US his picking up the telephoneand immediately making an appointment with the President ; and in Europehe 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 PrimeMinister-tobe), Retinger went to America at the end of 1946 seeking financialbacking for the group. In his own words ( as reported by his biographer andPersonal Assistant, John Pomian): " At that time I found in America a unanimousapproval 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 especiallymy old friend Adolph Berle Jnr. were all in favour, and Berle agreed to leadthe American section". (Berle was a prestigious corporate lawyer).

In March 1947, ILEC was established at a meeting in New York, with Van Zeelandas President of the Central Council and Retinger as General Secretary. InDecember 1947, as a result of Retinger's approaches to a number of othergroups of similar aims of European unity - either of a co-operative or federalistnature (Churchill's UEM; Coudenhove-Kalergi's IPU; the Catholic NEI; theCFEU and the UEF), the the International Committee of the Movement for EuropeanUnity (ICMEU) was formed, with Duncan-Sandys (Churchill's son-in-law) asChairman and Retinger as Honorary Secretary. This Committee, more commonlyknown as the European Movement (EM), convened the Congress of Europe in theHague 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 financialbacking for the EM, accompanied by Winston Churchill and Paul Henri Spaak,the Belgian Prime Minister. This resulted in the launching of the AmericanCommittee on a United Europe (ACUE) at a luncheon in honour of Churchillon the 29th of March 1949. The significance of ACUE lay in its stewardship:Chairman: William Donovan (ex-Director of the OSS); Vice-Chairman: AllenDulles (then Deputy Director of the CIA); Secretary: George Franklin (Directorof the Council for Foreign Relations); and Executive Director: Thomas Braden(Head of CIA Division on International Organisations). Funds for the EM (bynow transformed into the COE) were soon flowing into the COE's headquartersin Brussels - most of it from State Department's secret funds. ACUE was alsothe 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 hadmade with John McCloy US High Commissioner for Germany (later Chairman ofChase Manhattan Bank), and Robert Murphy, US Ambassador in Brussels (laterconsultant on Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board). Between 1951 and 1959this group received approximately 1.5 million pounds.

Perhaps the most intriguing of Retinger's contacts during this period wasDr. Hermann Josef Abs, who then set up the German section of ILEC. Abs, asDirector of the Deutsche Bank during the Third Reich, had been responsiblefor laying out the economic base the Nazis would adopt on attaining hegemonyover Europe and the USSR. Arrested for war crimes in January 1946, he wasreleased three months later on the intervention of the British - who thenappointed him economic advisor in their zone! More pertinently, in March1948 Abs was appointed Deputy Head of the Loan Corporation as well as Presidentof Bank Deutsche Lander, and, as such, was in charge of the allocation ofMarshall aid to German industry. Another fascinating link was that, amongthe 40-or-so Directorships Abs had held, one was in the I.G.Farben conglomeratewhich 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, althoughit had failed to create an economic climate in Europe amenable to the freeflow of American capital, was nonetheless the first post-war organisationof European unity, and, as such, was of political importance. From now on,in order to create the necessary economic climate, the dissident Britishand Scandavians would be by-passed. This was accomplished by the formationof the European Coal & Steel Community (ECSC) in April 1951, the resultof the French Prime Minister Paul Schuman's call the previous year for theplacing of French and German coal & steel production under the controlof a supranational body, by which means the French hoped to gain some controlover the future of Germany, and thus, at the very least, hinder the American'splan to re-arm the latter. Schuman, born in the Alsace region, served inthe German army in WW 1 and subsequently adopted French nationality. He laterjoined the right-wing group Energie of professor Louis de Fur - who was laterto serve under Pétain during the Vichy régime.

In July 1967 the six ECSC members, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourgand 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, theCommon 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 steelindustries in their respective countries, and on the other hand the roleplayed 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 Marshallaid. The popular conception of this aid is that it was primarily for thereconstruction of West European democracies ravaged by war. This was notso. From 1946 to 1951 five right-wing dictatorhips (Greece, Turkey, SouthVietnam, South Korea and Formosa), with a total population of 75 million,received more American economic aid in grants than Western Europe, whichhad a larger population. Again, the five dictatorships received 7.9 billiondollars in military aid (this excludes such aid to South Korea during thewar 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 wasfor her war in Indochina), and 0.5 billion dollars for fascist Spain (whichhad received 1 billion dollars in economic aid). From 1946 to 1953 West Germanyreceived 3.6 billion dollars in economic aid. It is thus hardly surprisingthat it was debtor France who formulated the idea leading to the ECSC (anorganisation whose federalist structure conformed to America's wishes), andthat fellow-debtor Germany was a willing accomplice.

The aid so allocated reflected corporate America's political orientationin a nutshell, and a further example was the warning given by Secretary ofState Marshall - aimed primarily at France and Italy - that no aid wouldbe forthcoming if communists gained any positions of political power. Result:the Italian communists lost the general election in 1948 (which they wereexpected to win); and French communists were removed from cabinet posts theyalready held. Then, one year after the implementation of the Marshall Plan,NATO was created, ostensibly to act as a shield against Soviet expansionwestwards. However, the Americans were well aware that the Soviets posedno serious military threat in the post-war period: had they not for the lastthree years of the war been supplying the USSR, under the Lend-Lease program,with military equipment that the latter lacked? Moreover it is inconceivablethat they were not aware of the devastation caused by the strategy of TotalWar waged by the German army on Soviet soil. A cursory glance at the statisticsof that devastation would have been enough to convince them of the improbabilityof any military aggression from that quarter. The passage of time has provedthat NATO's purpose was primarily political, not military. Had it been thelatter, it would have been made redundant on the collapse of the USSR. Itspolitical role assumed two functions: primarily to ensure the hegemony ofAmerican capital (or American Leadership as propounded by all post-war USPresidents - and most recently by Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,in her address to the House); and secondarily, to satisfy the more immediateneed (at the time of its foundation) for an organisation that would embraceall the key European nations, including Germany and the then dissident Britain.

The Truman doctrine of containment of the USSR having struck a sympatheticchord among some European governments, and Marshall Aid having bolsteredthat sympathy with the added sense of indebtedness, NATO was the logicaloutcome. As noted above, this would be an ostensibly military organisationwith a command structure fenced with statutory clauses which ensured Americancontrol - to say nothing of the financial largesse that would accompany it- but the American's plan to induct Germany into the organisation and therebyre-arm her met with stiff European resistance. And the setting up by theFrench of the ECSC and its supplementary European Defence Community (EDC)did not help matters. Enter Josef Hieronym Retinger - once again. As a resultof his approaches in the early 1950's to the most influential West Europeanleaders, he and Prince Bernhard of Holland went to Washington in 1953 tolobby support from Walter Bedell Smith (Dir. of the CIA) and Charles Jackson(National Security Advisor to Eisenhower) for a group that would serve asa forum for lobbying at the highest political level in order to ensure thatconsensual 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 GeorgeBall (Corporate lawyer & partner of Lehman Bros.). This committee, inturn, resulted in the formation of the Bilberberg Group in May 1954. Sincethat date, all doors to the seats of power in the West have been accessibleto the Bilderberg. According to George McGhee (ex-US Ambassador to West Germany),who attended all Bilderberg meetings from 1955 to 1967: " The Treaty of Romewhich brought the Common Market into being, was nutrured at the Bilderbergmeetings.".. Germany Joined NATO on the 6th of May 1955. The movement ofAmerican capital could now be facilitated.

This calls for the posing of a very common-sensical question: who benefittedmost from the Common Market?. The answer to this question was spelt out clearlyby the French newspaper owner Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber in hiswell-researched book "The American Challenge" of 1967. (In fairness, it shouldbe noted here that the message of the book was the somewhat naive one thatEurope should copy the American way of doing-business!). The following aretaken 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 - workingcapital being as much again (US Dept. of Commerce).

(2) From 1958 to 1957 " American corporations have invested 10 billion dollarsin Western Europe - more than a third of their total investment abroad. Ofthe 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 to1966 American investment rose by 17 percent in the US, 21 percent in therest of the world, and 40 percent in the Common Market".

(4) By1963 "American firms in France controlled 40 percent of the petroleummarket, 65 percent of films & photographic paper, 65 percent of farmmachinery, 65 percent of telecommunications equipment, and 45 percent ofsynthetic rubber. (quoted from Foreign Investment in France by Giles Bertain)."

(5) "As early as 1965 the Commerzbank estimated American-controlled investmentsin Germany at 2 billion dollars, while the gross capital of all firms quotedon the German stock exchange was only 3.5 billion dollars".

(6) "More than half of the US subsidiaries in Europe belong to the 340 Americanfirms appearing on the list of the 500 largest corporations in the world.Three American giants are responsible for 40 percent of direct Americaninvestment in France, Germany and Britain.

(7) "During 1965 the Americans invested 4 billion dollars in Europe. Thisis where the money came from:

1. Loans from the European capital market (Euro-issues) and direct creditsfrom European countries - 55 percent.
2. Subsidies from European governments and internal financing from localearnings - 35 percent.
3. Direct dollar transfers from the United States - 10 percent. Thus, nine-tenthsof American investment in Europe is financed from European sources. In otherwords, we pay them to buy us".

(8) "In the words of M. Boyer de la Giroday of the Brussels Commission: 'Americaninvestment in Europe has its own special nature. When we set up the EuropeanEconomic Committee (EEC) we did something useful, but simple and stillincomplete. So far its major result has been to speed our economic prosperityby creating the most favourable climate for a growing invasion of Americanindustries. They are the only ones to have acted on the logic of the CommonMarket'".

Implicit in the truism that the child is the product of its parents is theequally valid truism that in order to know the child well, one must knowits parents. In the case of the Common Market, in view of the incestuousnature of its parentage (to say nothing of the strange midwives attendingits birth), it is hardly surprising that it turned out to ba a most uncommommarket.

Postscript

The following statistics illustrating US direct investment abroad in morerecent times (in millions of dollars) will be seen to be of direct pertinenceto the above critique - to say nothing of exposing the true nature of Britain'sSpecial Relationship with America!

Bibliography

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 FreePress 1968)

Statistical Abstract of the US 1996 - 116th Edition (The National Data Book)

http://www.spectrezine.org

On September 12, 1939, the Council on Foreign Relations began to take controlof the Department of State. On that day Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Editor ofForeign Affairs, and Walter H. Mallory, Executive Director of the Councilon Foreign Relations, paid a visit to the State Department. The Council proposedforming groups of experts to proceed with research in the general areas ofSecurity, Armament, Economic, Political, and Territorial problems. The StateDepartment accepted the proposal. The project (1939-1945) was called Councilon Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was Executivedirector.

In February 1941 the CFR officially became part of the State Department.The Department of State established the Division of Special Research. Itwas organized just like the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studiesproject. It was divided into Economic, Political, Territorial, and SecuritySections. The Research Secretaries serving with the Council groups were hiredby the State Department to work in the new division. These men also werepermitted to continue serving as Research Secretaries to their respectiveCouncil groups. Leo Pasvolsky was appointed Director of Research.

In 1942 the relationship between the Department of State and the Councilon Foreign Relations strengthened again. The Department organized an AdvisoryCommittee on Postwar Foreign Policies. The Chairman was Secretary CordellHull, 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 outsideexperts 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. Themeetings were held at Council on Foreign Relations headquarters -- the HaroldPratt house, Fifty-Eight East Sixty-Eighth Street, New York City. The Council'swartime work was confidential.17

In 1944 members of the Council on Foreign Relations The War and Peace StudiesPolitical Group were invited to be active members at the Dumbarton Oaksconference on world economic arrangements. In 1945 these men and membersof Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs were active at theSan 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-politicaloperation forcing the Marshall Plan on the American public. The PSYOP includeda "anonymous" letter credited to a Mr. X, which appeared in the Council onForeign Relations magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The letter opened the door forthe CFR controlled Truman administration to take a hard line against thethreat of Soviet expansion. George Kennan was the author of the letter. TheMarshall Plan should have been called the Council on Foreign Relations Plan.The so-called Marshall Plan and the ensuing North Atlantic Treaty Organizationdefined the role of the United States in world politics for the rest of thecentury.

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 PolicyPlanning 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 assumethe 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 -- theWORLD WIDE COMMUNIST THREAT!

NSC-68 realized a major Council on Foreign Relations aim -- building thelargest military establishment in Peace Time History. Within a year of draftingNSC-68, the security-related budget leaped to $22 billion, armed forces manpowerwas up to a million -- CFR medicine, munition, food, and media businesseswere 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 wentbankrupt.

America would never turn back from the road of huge military spending. Spendingthat included the purchase of radioactive fallout on American citizens inthe 50's, and buying thermonuclear waste from the Russians as we approachthe year 2000. Spending resulting in a national debt of $5.5 Trillion Dollarsthat continues to grow, and interest payments of over $270 billion a year.Is the Council on Foreign Relations trying to make the United States economicallyvulnerable to influence from outside sources? Isn't that treason? Is theRoyal Institute of International Affairs doing the same thing to Britain?

roundtable

Visit the Roundtable Web Page:http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807

E-mail:roundtable@mail.geocities.com

How many Secretaries of State belonged to the Council on Foreign Relations?See CFR Secretaries of Statehttp://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807/wwcfrsos.html

Do bear in mind that Stephen Dorril revealed - in his book: 'MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations' published by Fourth Estate, London, 2000 - that Retinger was an MI6 asset (agent). [ed.]

Retinger is on the right

John Pomian. Sussex University 1972.

CHAPTER 4

European Unity.

1952 started badly. The Cold War was at its height. Pressure for Germanrearmament was mounting and was creating tensions and stresses in Europe.The Korean war dragged on, and so did war in Indo-China. While neutralistfeelings were spreading in Europe, McCarthyism was growing in the UnitedStates. On both sides of the Atlantic there was good deal of reciprocal mistrust.The newly born Atlantic Alliance and NATO were seriously threatened as aresult. A rift between a scared and confused Europe and an America over-confidentin its power boded ill for the future. Everything that had been so painfullybuilt up in the West since the War would be adversely affected.

Many people, including Retinger, were concerned about this situation, butcould see no solution. What could possibly be done on both sides of the Atlanticat a moment when governments themselves seemed to be drifting apart?

Retinger always believed that public opinion follows the lead of influentialindividuals. He much preferred working through a few carefully selected peopleto publicity on a massive scale. Perhaps it would be possible to bring togethera group of people, from among the most influential men in their respectivefields, and cause them to take an active interest in redressing the situationboth in Europe and America. but although few would disagree with this admirableaim, most people would be reluctant to devote much time to something so vague,Any proposal would, therefore, have to be sufficiently attractive and, aboveall, demonstrate that it was effective.

In the early part of 1952 Retinger consulted some of his friends and inparticular Paul van Zeeland and Paul Rykens, who was then Chairman of Unilever.They shared his views and offered some advice. It seemed that the problemwas real and serious enough and many people were concerned about it. It affectedevery country and every party alike. But for that very reason anything thatmight be done about it could appear suspect should it be identified withany major country or any political party. The principal difficulty was,therefore, to find the right kind of person to play a leading part. Retingerthought about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, whom he had met brieflyduring the War and later during the Congress of the Hague. The Prince wasinterested in politics and supported European Unity. His official positionof prince Consort limited his freedom of action but he was always ready tohelp good causes. He was universally liked and was popular in America. Hissupport would be invaluable.

And so, in May, Paul Rykens, who had the ear of the Prince, arranged anappointment. During their first meeting, the Prince was sympathetic and intriguedby 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 selectgroup of people became involved. In addition to Dr Rykens and Mr van Zeelandit comprised Signor de Gasperi and Ambassador Pietro Quaroni for Italy, HughGaitskell and Sir Colin Gubbins for Great Britain, Antoine Pinay and GuyMollet for France, Max Brauer, the Mayor of Hamburg, and Rudolf Mueller forGermany, Panajotis Pipinelis for Greece and Ole Bjorn Kraft for Denmark.

The first meeting was arranged in Paris on 25 September 1952. Although deGasperi could not come, the presence of all the others was more than enoughto draw attention and create a stir. Paris under the Fourth Republic - whenFrance was involved in colonial wars and government crises succeeded oneanother rapidly - lived in an atmosphere of permanent conspiracy and intrigue.However ridiculous it might be everybody had to take it into account andplay the part. In our case it was said that should it be known that Mr Pinaywas meeting Mr Mollet grave trouble would result for both. But also if anybodyasked questions it would be extremely difficult to explain what the meetingwas all about and why so many important people were taking part. It was purelyexploratory and it was too early to say what the outcome would be. In thecirc*mstances it was thought preferable to keep it all as discreet as possible.

The meeting went very well and everybody agreed that there was an urgentneed to do something to improve relations with the United States. The methodof doing so would gradually become clearer. In any case it was necessaryto have further consultations and establish contacts in the United States.In the meantime more people and more countries should be brought into thecircle and papers should be prepared on the feelings and position in eachEuropean county. It would set people thinking and might yield interestingresults.

Many years later, Ambassador Quaroni, writing on Retinger, described thisoccasion as follows:

"I also recall the first meeting to which I was invited. We were squeezedround a very large table in a tiny room; we agreed on the principle, butdid 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 issuedforth 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 wasprobably the only one among us who had really studied the question on bothsides of the Atlantic and who had specific ideas on the subject. With hispleasant, old schemer's manners, he persuaded us to accept most of what hewanted.'

The whole of 1953 was spent on further contacts and consultations - therewere more meetings - and a couple of visits to the United States. There,things were a little slow to start, mainly because people were absorbed inthe Presidential elections. Once these were over everything went smoothly.General Eisenhower, the new President, as well as some of his closestcollaborators had a recent experience of Europe and appreciated its problems.Also they knew Prince Bernhard well and held him in high esteem. As a resultan American group was quickly brought together under the Chairmanship ofthe late Mr John Coleman, President of the Burroughs Corporation, assistedby Mr Joseph Johnson, Director of the Carnegie Foundation.

Then in May 1954 the first conference took place in a secluded hotel calledthe Bilderberg, near Arnhem in Holland. There were about eighty participants,including some twenty Americans. It was a very high-powered gathering ofprominent politicians, industrialists, bankers and eminent public figures,writers, trade unionists and scholars. Prince Bernhard, Paul van Zeelandand John Coleman took the Chair in turn. A certain atmosphere of tenseexpectation, noticeable when people who are gathered together for the firsttime warily feel their way, was soon dissipated, thanks largely to the charm,easy manner and sense of humour of the Prince. Speakers were only allowedfive minutes at a time which helped to liven up debates, while the pungentinterventions of C.D. Jackson, Denis Healey, Lord Boothby and a few othersadded bite to the discussions.

In addition to the plenary meetings, meals and drinks were occasions forsome of the most interesting, stimulating and often amusing exchanges. Afterthree days of living together in this secluded place, which participantsleft only once, when Prince Bernhard invited them to co*cktails at the RoyalPalace nearby,m a certain faint but discernible bond was created. A new entitywas born. But it was difficult to define what it was. Its purpose, its methodsand its structure were new and original. They did not bear any analogy anddid not fit into any known category. For the time being, for lack of anybetter term, it was called the Bilderberg Group after the name of the hotelin which the first meeting took place.

This name has stuck and is still used today. Since the first conference in1954 many others have been held under the Chairmanship of Prince Bernhard,usually at yearly intervals and each time in a different country, includingthe United States and Canada. The subjects discussed vary, but always coverthe problems which confront the Western countries and which are apt to createfriction and divergencies between them. It is perhaps the best forum possibleto debate the great issues of the day. It is certainly one of the best informedassemblies, and after a Bilderberg week-end one leaves with a feeling ofknowing not only the points of view within the different countries but, whatis more important, having had an insight into the inner feelings of the principalactors.

Yet the importance of the Bilderberg Group stems from the people who takepart. At each successive meeting, new persons are invited. The circle thusgrows larger and never gets stale. Only the inner circle, called the SteeringCommittee, which is responsible for the preparation of the meetings, remainsthe same and even there a change of guard occasionally takes place. Duringthe first three or four years the all-important selection of participantswas a delicate and difficult task. This was particularly so as regardspoliticians. It was not easy to persuade top office holders to come. Theoccasion was interesting and pleasant enough but was it worth a four dayforeign journey? Here Retinger displayed great skill and an uncanny abilityto pick out people who in a few years time were to accede to the highestoffices in their respective countries. In this way after a few years, whenthe fame of the conferences began to spread, getting people to come was nolonger a problem. Rather the opposite was the case. Then the most frequentproblem was how to keep them out without creating offence.

After several years the Bilderberg Group could claim an impressive arrayof statesmen and potentates of all sorts, who at one stage or another havebeen brought into its circle. No names need be quoted - and indeed the rulewas not to - but it would suffice to say that today there are very few keyfigures among governments on both sides of the Atlantic who have not attendedat least one of these meetings. What is perhaps more important is that everyoneis flattered to receive an invitation.

The character, the strength and the vitality of any group depends on thegrowth of a network of personal relations between its members. In the earlydays Retinger was largely the focus and the intermediary in addition to beingthe moving spirit of it all. He had plenty of initiative and was full ofideas - sometimes too much so for less adventurous spirits. But also, involvedas he was in many affairs, he often had things up his sleeve which were ofreal or potential advantage to many members of the Group.

Within a few years, however, Prince Bernhard became the true centre of allthe loyalties and affective bonds. At first, he had to step warily, establishingprecedents and getting to know people, most of whom, by the very nature ofthings, felt diffident towards their royal Chairman. Time was needed to buildconfidence an that intimate mutual understanding necessary for sure-footedmanagement.

To build the whole group around the person of the Prince was a master-strokeon the part of Retinger. Prince Bernhard has great qualities of heart andmind, whose harmonious blend results in an enormous personal charm whichfew people can resist. Also his position is unique. As a royal prince henaturally takes precedence without arousing anybody's envy. He is politicallyimpartial, while the fact that he represents a small country is also reassuring.There were also many intangible but very real and very great advantages inhaving a royal prince as Chairman, and to illustrate this it might not beinappropriate 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 likelyto remain valid for many generations to come.

How useful and effective have the Bilderberg Conferences really been? Much, of course, depended on the circ*mstances at the time. The meeting heldin Florida in February 1957 was, for instance, very much apropos to helpheal the bruises after the Suez disaster. Lord Kilmuir, who was then LordChancellor, recalls in his memoirs, that having been expressly sent thereby the Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, he found it an immensely useful occasionfor talks with high-ranking Americans.

Certainly it created countless extremely helpful contacts between peoplewho bore some of the principal responsibilities for the affairs of theircountries both in politics and in economics. Although completely intangible,this is a very important factor in international affairs which sometimesleads to great results. European Unity would not have been possible withouta enormous number of personal contacts and confrontations between the politicaland economic leaders of European countries. There is much less of this betweenEurope and America and therefore occasions where it takes place are all themore precious.

Moreover, the relationship between the United States and its European partnerssuffers from a disparity of power, and this is further aggravated by thesheer physical distance between America and Europe. It is a very real factorand whatever the issues of the day might be its influence is constantly felt.Inside Europe, political opinion within a country can be influenced by theviews and wishes of other European nations. Governments have to take noteof what others think. A good deal of pressure can be brought on a countrywho is out of step with its partners, and this is almost always effectiveenough as none is sufficiently strong to disregard others for long. Thatis 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 asif he could get away with more than anybody else but, in fact, by means ofhis very skilful diplomacy he managed to bring others round to share hisviews.

America is in an altogether different position. It towers in the distance,and Europeans, of whatever country, enmeshed as they are in a network oftreaties of which America is always the hub, simply feel that they cannotexert the kind of influence nor bring the degree of pressure which theirown involvement requires. They can pray, hope and watch but there is notmuch they can do. Any occasion of talking fully and frankly to top Americanleaders is particularly useful and important. Hence the very fact that theBilderberg exists is in itself a factor of some consequence in Atlanticrelations.

I remember that, while making a modest start in politics, I tried to explainwhat to me seemed the most important aspect of some problem to Mr Paul deAuer, an old and experienced Hungarian diplomatist. I must have appearedtoo intent and gone on for too long. When I finished, Mr de Auer wearilywaved his hand and said: 'Monsieur Pomian, in politics those things are importantwhich important people think are important.' By this simple rule the BilderbergGroup is certainly important.

Since the first meeting in Paris in 1952, a slight air of mystery has surroundedthe Bilderberg Group. Neither what was said, nor who the participants were,were ever divulged to the Press. Publicity was shunned. Sometimes. Sometimesthis contributed to stir curiosity and imagination, sometimes to spread fame,sometimes to spread stories. On many occasions it gave rise to a great varietyof amusing incidents.

An innocent one occurred in July 1956. Till then no Turks had participatedin the meetings. This gap had to be repaired and Prince Bernhard, who wason good terms with Prime Ministermenderes agreed to introduce Retinger toexplain what was wanted. For a variety of reasons the meeting could not bearranged 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 Hagueand an appointment had been fixed in Turkey in a fortnight's time. The linewas 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 thearrangements and also to discover how much the Turks knew about the purposeof the visit. They Turkish Minister was most helpful and had organized everythingvery well, but although he seemed very impressed with the importance of themission 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 hisusual title of Doctor, but this seemed irrelevant.

In Istanbul, where we arrived the same day, an impressive welcome awaitedus, and here again everybody addressed Retinger as Professor. The same thinghappened in Ankara, where Retinger first called on the Foreign Minister.All our Turkish hosts were so hospitable and so deferential towards Retingerthat 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 fromthe Protocol Department, who, with a worried look announced that we musthurry as we were late for our next appointment. This was news to us as nonehad 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 .... otherProfessors at the University. It was too late to react. We could not explainthat it was all a mistake. Too many people to whom we were indebted for amost hospitable reception would be embarrassed. We set off exchanging worriedglances.

At the University we were greeted by the Dean of the Faculty of Law andEconomics, accompanied by some twenty professors. Drinks were served andan 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 anyof our hosts ask from which university Professor Retinger came. That wouldhave been awful, for everybody would have lost face. Happily we stood ourground 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 someprevious engagement and, exhausted, we beat a hasty retreat to the bar ofour hotel where the biggest whiskies were promptly ordered!

Otherwise the visit to Turkey proved very successful, largely thanks to thehelp and understanding of a very able diplomatist, Ambassador Nuri Birgiwho, at that time, was Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry. Two yearslater the Turks played host to a Bilderberg Conference in a secluded hotelon the magical shores of the Bosphorus.

Although the Bilderberg Group was mainly concerned with problems facing theAtlantic Alliance, Retinger remained, as before, primarily attached to EuropeanUnity. His views did not change nor did his involvement get less. His fieldof 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 Europewas limited to the Six and all efforts were concentrated on this area. Thefailure of the European Defence Community in 1955 was followed by the MessinaConference which gave birth to the Common Market. Again Britain refused tojoin. Instead, seeing the results, she took the initiative of forming theEuropean Free Trade Area (EFTA) grouping the Scandinavian countries, Austria,Switzerland and Portugal who were like-minded in their attitude to Europeanunification. Then followed an attempt to join the two together. It threatenedthe purpose and existence of the newly formed Common Market and General deGaulle, who by then had come to power in France, objected. At the same timehe firmly set his face against any further extension of the supranationalprinciple. The next phase was to be 'L'Europe des Patries' which at the sametime 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. Theyall had to do either with 'Europe' or the 'Atlantic'. Among these the EuropeanCultural Foundation and the Atlantic Congress loomed larger as far as timeand effort were concerned.

There were also many things he launched himself. One of them had to do withAsia. He sought to find a way of establishing a dialogue between the Westand the East, in which philosophers, theologians and political thinkers wouldtake 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 Denisde Rougemont, who participated in it all, will long remain as a lone monumentconnected with this venture. Otherwise it came to nothing.

Then there was also Eastern Europe. After the 20th Congress of the SovietCommunist Party, it seemed that a wind of change was beginning to blow throughoutthe Soviet bloc. Perhaps the evolution might even go far enough for theBilderberg experience to become relevant to EastWest relations. Retingeralways like to proceed empirically and gradually test the ground. In thiscase it would take a long time and in the meantime he needed to build uphis own personal renown. For the first time in his like he felt in need ofsome publicity for himself. He needed to be noticed and be in a positionto impress people in the Eastern bloc. The Nobel Peace prize occurred tohim 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 theprizes and nothing came of it. Earlier on, in 1956, a letter he wrote toMr Cyrankiewicz, the then Polish Prime Minister, whom he knew of old, askingfor a visa to Poland, remained unanswered. Altogether, in the late fifties,any moves in the direction of Eastern Europe were, in fact, premature. Ilike to think that in this case as in so many others he anticipated the courseof events.

All along Retinger worked closely with Prince Bernhard, to whom he was verydeeply devoted. He served his prince faithfully and unsparingly as a kindof self-appointed political courtier, and in turn the Prince was always amost loyal and faithful friend and ally.

In1957 his health began to decline. It worried him but he did little aboutit. 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 planswith regard to the various causes that were dear to his heart. There wasa sharp decline during his last few weeks but even that had no visible effecton his good humour or his interest in men and problems. He was heard inconfession and received the last sacraments. In his last months he certainlyfelt that he had fulfilled his task and had done what he had set out to doexcept to complete his memoirs. This book might, perhaps, help to fill thatgap.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AUTHOR: Retinger, Joseph Hieronim, 1888-1960.
ADDED NAMES: Pomian, John, 1924-
TITLE: Joseph Retinger--memoirs of an eminence grise
SUBJECT: Retinger, Joseph Hieronim, 1888-1960
PUBLISHER: Sussex University Press; Distributed by Ghatto and Windus,
DATE:1972.
ISBN: 0856210021

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 Gibraltarin 1943 in which Gen. Sikorski, Polish, Prime Minister, was killed said lastnight that it was" the slander of the century " to say he was part of aconspiracy to murder the general.

The pilot, Mr. Edward Prchal, formerly a flight lieutenant and now livingin California, appeared on the Independent Television pro-gramme "Frost onFriday."

The programme was devoted to a discussion, at times heated, of Sikorski'sdeath. In Rolf Hoch-huth's play, "Soldiers" it is presented as having beenengineered by the British Secret Service with the complicity of Sir WinstonChurchill.

Meanwhile controversy con-tinues about Carlos Thompson's forthcoming book"The Assas-sination of Winston Churchill," of which extracts were reproducedin The Sunday Telegraph. To-morrow's issue includes extensive correspondencefrom readers about the Sikorski affair and Hochhuth's treatment of recenthistory.

Grandson intervenes

In the television programme Sir Winston's grandson, Mr. Winston Churchill,who was in the audience, intervened to demand, passionately that people whoaccused his grandfather of participating in the conspiracy, should produceevidence instead of "supposition."

Mr. Prchal challenged Mr. David Irving, author of "Acci-dent: the Death ofGen. Sikorski," to, produce "even half an ounce of .real evidence" to supporthis contention that sabotage caused the crash.

Mr. Prchal said Herr Hochhuth's idea that he had been party to a sabotageplot was not original. "He stole it from Goebbels, within four hours of the'crash.....................[this was transcribed from a fragment of a veryold pink front page of the Daily Telegraph, the rest of the article was tornoff - ed.]

Kai Bird’s account in "The Chairman, John J. McCoy, The Making of the American Establishment", states:

"In late 1952, Retinger went to America to try the idea out on his Americancontacts. Among others, he saw such old friends as Averell Harriman, DavidRockefeller, and Bedel Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explainedhis proposal, Smith said, ‘Why the hell didn’t you come to me inthe first place?’ He quickly referred Retinger to C. D. Jackson, whowas about to become Eisenhower’s special assistant for psychologicalwarfare. It took a while for Jackson to organize the American wing of thegroup, but finally, in May 1954, the first conference was held in the Hotelde Bilderberg, a secluded hotel in Holland, near the German border. PrinceBernhard, 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 servedin this post until scandal forced him to resign in 1974. Dr. Retinger becamethe first Secretary, and remained so until his death.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, publishesa weekly newspaper titled The Spotlight. At my request, they sent me a reprintof 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 ofBilderberg meetings on international affairs, in which I participated, washeld in Williamsburg, VA, on March 20, 21, and 22.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a background paperentitled ‘The Bilderberg Meetings.’

The Bilderberg Meetings

The idea of the Bilderberg meetings originated in the early fifties. Changeshad taken place on the international politician and economic scene afterWorld War II. The countries of the Western World felt the need for closercollaboration to protect their moral and ethical values, their democraticinstitutions, and their independence against the growing Communist threat.The Marshall plan and NATO were examples of collective efforts of Westerncountries to join hands in economic and military matters after World WarII.

In the early 1950’s, a number of people on both sides of the Atlanticsought a means of bringing together leading citizens, not necessarily connectedwith government, for informal discussions of problems facing the Atlanticcommunity. Such meetings, they felt, would create a better understandingof the forces, and trends affecting Western nations, in particular. Theybelieved that direct exchanges could help to clear up differences, andmisunderstandings that might weaken the West.

One of the men who saw the need for such discussions was the late (Dr.) JosephH. (Heironymus) Retinger (as a matter of interest, the name Heironymus isliterally translated to be "MEMBER OF THE OCCULT"). In 1952, he approachedHis Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with the suggestionof informal and unofficial meetings to discuss the problems facing the Atlanticcommunity. Others in Europe wholeheartedly supported the idea, and proposalswere submitted to American friends to join in the undertaking. A number ofAmericans, including C. D. Jackson, the late General Walter Bedel Smith,and the late John Coleman, agreed to cooperate. (Very reliable informationfrom a former CIA member now reveals that the CIA financed Dr. Retinger'sefforts to convince Prince Bernhard to form this group that was later tobe called the Bilderbergs. This is confirmed by the fact that General WalterBedel Smith was the CIA director from 1950 to 1953, so, is it surprisingthat he would agree to join this group?)

The first meeting that brought Americans and Europeans together took placeunder the chairmanship of Prince Bernhard at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek,Holland, from May 29 to May 31, 1954. Ever since, the meetings have beencalled Bilderberg meetings.

No Strict Rules of Procedure

From the outset, it was the intentions of the Bilderberg founders, andparticipants that no strict rules of procedure govern the meetings. Everyeffort 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 attendthe meetings.

Participants

It was obvious from the first that the success of the meetings would dependprimarily on the level of the participants. Leading figures from many fields- industry, labor, education, government, etc. - are invited, who, throughtheir special knowledge or experience, can help to further Bilderberg objectives.Representatives of governments attend in a personal, and not an officialcapacity. An attempt is made to include participants representing many politicalparties, and points of view. American participation has included Membersof Congress of both parties.

Over the years, Bilderberg participants have come from the NATO countries,Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, and Finland, and have included prominentindividuals such as Dean Rusk, Christian A. Herter, Maurice Faure, Franz-JosefStrauss, Amitore Fanfani, Panayotis Pipinelis, Reginald Maudling, the lateHugh Gaitskell, Omer Becu, Guy Mollet, the late Michael Ross, Herman Abs,C. L. Sulzberger, Joseph Harsch, and T. M. Terkelsen. Individuals withinternational responsibilities have also participated, among them being Gen.Alfred Gruenther, Lord Ismay, Eugene Black, Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, Paul-HenrySpaak, and the late Per Jacobsson. `

The Meetings

Bilderberg meetings are held at irregular intervals, but have taken placeonce 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 toprovide a convenient opportunity for American, and Canadian participantsto attend."

The Spotlight reports that the Bilderberg meetings are highly secret, andare held at random times each year, and rarely at the same location, forsecurity reasons. The responsibility for security for these meetings is inthe 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 thesevery powerful international Elite members who are not required to conformto 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.

Endnote:

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.

The Bilderberg Group... the Trilateral Commission... covert power groups of the West by Robert Eringer, Pentacle Books, 1980. Extract: Chapter 1

In Search of Answers

It is indeed intriguing when a prestigious collection of internationallypowerful men lock themselves away for a weekend in some remote town far awayfrom the Press to talk about world problems.

Since the late 1950s, the Bilberberg Group has been the subject of a varietyof conspiracy theories. For the most part, conspiracy theories emanate frompolitical extremist organisations, Right and Left. The 'Radical Right' viewBilderberg as an integral part of the 'international Zionist-communistconspiracy'. At the other end of the political spectrum, the radical Leftperceive Bilderberg to be a branch of the 'Rockefeller-Rothschild grand designto rule the world'. For many it is less frightening to believe in hostileconspirators than it is to face the fact that no one is in control. And afterall, isn't conspiracy the normal continuation of normal politics by normalmeans?

Conspiracy or not, the Bilderberg Group is a fascinating example ofbehind-the-scenes 'invisible' influence-peddling in action.

Bilderbergers represent the elite and wealthy establishment of every Westernnation. They include bankers, industrialists, politicians and leaders ofgiant multinational corporations. Their annual meetings, which take placeat 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: 'Agroup of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerablepositions behind the scenes.'

I began my investigation of Bilderberg while in Washington, D.C. in the autumnof 1975. I had read bits and pieces on Bilderberg in right-wing literatureand so I went directly to its source, the Liberty Lobby, an ultra-conservativepolitical pressure group located a stone's throw from Capitol Hill. ThereI interviewed one E. Stanley Rittenhouse, Liberty Lobby's legislative aide.Rittenhouse solemnly explained the existence of a Jewish-communist conspiracyto rule the world by way of a 'New World Order', whose eventual goal is oneworld government. To prove this point Rittenhouse incessantly recited passagesfrom his handy pocket Bible and explained the evolution of this great conspiracy.

It all goes back to the Illuminati, a secret society/fraternity formed inBavaria in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, based on the philosophical ideals of Plato.John Ruskin, 'a secret disciple of the Illuminati' and a professor of artand philosophy at Oxford University in the 1870s, revived these ideals inhis teachings.

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley, a distinguished professor at Georgetown Universityfor many years, wrote in Tragedy and Hope that 'Ruskin spoke to theOxford undergraduates as members of the privileged ruling class ... thatthey were possessors of a magnificent tradition of education, beauty, ruleof law, freedom, decency, and self-discipline but that this tradition couldnot be saved, and indeed did not deserve to be saved, unless it could beextended to the lower classes in England and to the non-English masses throughoutthe world'.

Cecil Rhodes, a student and devoted fan of Ruskin, 'Feverishly exploitedthe diamond and gold fields of South Africa. With financial support fromLord Rothschild he was able to monopolise the diamond mines of South Africaas De Beers Consolidated Mines.

'In the middle of the 1890s Rhodes had a personal income of a least a millionpounds a year which he spent so freely for his mysterious purposes that hewas usually overdrawn on his account. These purposes centred on his desireto federate the English-speaking peoples and to bring all habitable portionsof the world under their control.'

To this end, Rhodes, along with other disciples of Ruskin, formed a secretsociety in association with a group of Cambridge men who shared the sameideals. This society, which was later to become the original Round TableGroup (better known in the 1920s as the 'Cliveden Set') was formed on February5, 1881.

According to Dr. Quigley, 'This group was able to get access to Rhodes'smoney after his death in 1902.' Under the trusteeship of Alfred (later Lord)Milner, 'They sought to extend and execute the ideals that Rhodes had obtainedfrom Ruskin.

'As governor-general of South Africa in the period 1897-1905, Milner recruiteda group of young men, chiefly from Oxford and from Toynbee Hall, to assisthim in organising his administration. Through this influence these men wereable to win influential posts in government and international finance andbecame the dominant influence in British imperial and foreign affairs upto 1939. Under Milner in South Africa, they were known as Milner\s Kindergartenuntil 1910. In 1909-1903 they organised semi-secret groups, known as RoundTable 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 Groupsof the United States and Britain emerged out from under a cloak of secrecyand 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, andthe Council on Foreign Relations - Royal Institute of International Affairsrelationship.

I phoned Dr. Quigley at his office in Georgetown University's elite Schoolof Foreign Service. A man of impeccable credentials, Quigley used Tragedyand 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 thenecessary demand, the publisher responded by saying that the plates had beendestroyed.

In his book, 1310 pages in all, Quigley detailed how the intricate financialand commercial patterns of the West prior to 1914 influenced the developmentof today's world. It has been suggested that these revelations, especiallyin coming from a respected historian, did not amuse the higher echelons ofbig 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 onlythrough mail order book clubs which specialise in conspiracy literature.

Quigley, in his best Boston accent, dismissed the Radical-Right interpretationas 'garbage'. But he was quick to add, 'To be perfectly blunt, you couldfind yourself in trouble dealing with this subject.' He explained that hiscareer was a lecturer in the government institution circuit was all but ruinedbecause of the twenty or so pages he had written about the existence of RoundTable Groups. I recently studied the late Dr. Quigley's private files onthe Round Table Groups at the Georgetown University library. There I discoveredgreat substance to his findings in the form of personal correspondence andnotes of interviews and conversations.

Exhausted with right-wing cries of communist conspiracy, I wrote to the embassiesin Washington of each one of the countries whose citizens are involved withBilderberg. I received only three replies. A letter from the Royal SwedishEmbassy states: 'Prominent Swedish businessmen in their private capacitiesare and have been members of the group. Swedish politicians have also - mostlyas invited guests as I understand it - participated in meetings with thegroup. I may add that I am not aware of any official Swedish view on theBilderberg Group.' The Canadian Embassy wrote: 'To our knowledge, the CanadianGovernment has no position with regard to this group.'

I telephoned all of the embassies. Out of twenty, the only one which hadany information of Bilderberg was that of the Netherlands. The official Ispoke with knew very little about the group but he speculated that its purposewas to make this 'a more liveable world'. A diplomat at the Embassy of WestGermany exclaimed, 'Bilder What?', and he refused to believe the existenceof such a group. This was a familiar response, even from many universityprofessors of politics whom I questioned.

Mark Felt, the former Assistant Director of the FBI, had never heard ofBilderberg. Neither had Michael Moffitt of the Institute for Policy Studiesand 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 occasionswhere 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 proclaimingthat the Russians have secretly implanted nuclear missiles in the MississippiRiver.

I wrote to President Gerald Ford at the White House to enquire about Bilderbergwhen 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 keptof 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 enquireabout Bilderberg. An assistant wrote back and he suggested I write to 'Mr.Charles Muller, a Vice President at Muden and Company, the organisation whichassists with the administration of American Friends of Bilderberg, Incorporated'

I wrote to Mr. Muller and was sent the following printed message: 'In theearly 1950s a number of people in both sides of the Atlantic sought a meansof bringing together leading citizens both in and out of government, forinformal discussions of problems facing the Western world. Such meetings,they felt, would create a better understanding of the forces and trends affectingWestern nations.

'The first meeting that brought Americans and Europeans together took placeunder the chairmanship of H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands at theBilderberg 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 compiledby Prince Bernhard in consultation with an informal international steeringcommittee; individuals are chosen in the light of their knowledge and standing.To ensure full discussion, an attempt is made to include participantsrepresenting many political and economic points of view. Of the 80 to 100participants, approximately one-third are from government and politics, theothers are from many fields - finance, industry, labour, education andjournalism. They attend in a personal and not in an official capacity.From the beginning participants have come from North America and WesternEurope, and from various international organisations. The officiallanguages are English and French.

'The meetings take place in a different county each year. Since 1957, theyhave been held in many Western European countries and in North America aswell.

'The discussion at each meeting is centred upon topics of current concernin the broad fields of foreign policy, world economy, and other contemporaryissues. Basic groundwork for the symposium is laid by means of working papersand general discussion follows. In order to assure freedom of speech andopinion, the gatherings are closed and off the record. No resolutions areproposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued during or afterthe meetings.

'In short, Bilderberg is a high-ranking and flexibly international forumin which opposing viewpoints can be brought closer together and mutualunderstanding furthered.'

I wrote to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and received a reply from theBureau of European Affairs at the State Department: 'In the early 1950s anumber of people on both sides of the Atlantic sought a means of bringingtogether leading citizens ' And so on.

I went to see Charles Muller at his Murden and Company office in New YorkCity. He appeared to know little about Bilderberg and merely repeated informationavailable on the printed message. It is claimed that' Government officialattend in a personal and not an official capacity'. Mr. Muller was surprisedto learn from me that the State Department acknowledged in a letterto Liberty Lobby that department officials Helmut Sonnenfeldt and WinstonLord attended a Bilderberg Conference at government expense in their officialcapacities.

I tried to obtain interviews with both Sonnenfeldt and Lord. Their secretarieschannelled 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 (suppliedby 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 outrightthat records of Bilderberg Conferences do not exist. (Little did he realisethat I had one in my briefcase!)

I wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and they replied: 'Thank youfor your letter enquiring about the Bilderberg Group. Unfortunately, we canfind no trace of the Bilderberg Group in any of our reference works oninternational organisations.' (Much later, I learned that the Foreign Officehas on occasion paid the way for British members to attend BilderbergConferences.)

A letter to one-time member Sir Paul Chambers brought this response: 'I amunder obligation not to disclose anything about the Bilderberg Group to anybodywho is not a member of that Group, I am very sorry that I cannot help, butI am clearly powerless to do so and it would be wrong in the circ*mstancesto say anything to you about Bilderberg.' Sir Paul suggested I write to theBilderberg secretariat at an address in the Hague. I did so and was againsent a copy of the standard printed message.

I had eagerly looked forward to the next Bilderberg Conference, which in1976 was to be held in Hot Springs, Virginia. For the first time since 1954,the meeting was cancelled. The international steering committee felt itinappropriate to conduct a conference that year because permanent chairmanPrince Bernhard was under such heavy public scrutiny after having been publiclydisgraced 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 toaccommodate over 100 Bilberberg participants. Even the Imperials permanentguests were told to find lodging elsewhere for the weekend.

I managed a booking at the Imperial for three nights before the Bilderbergersmoved in. On Thursday, two days before the conference was due to begin, heavylorries and workmen unloaded large wooden file cabinets and sealed crates.I was not allowed access to the conference hall, despite assurances froma Bilderberg secretary that 'We have nothing to hide'.

At 2 am Friday morning with the night club finally closed and the Imperialasleep, I tiptoed down five flights of stairs from my room to the conferencehall. To my surprise, the doors were unlocked and unguarded. I slipped intothe darkened hall and inspected the locked file cabinets, glass translationbooth and electronic equipment for tape-recording and translation. Havingalready consumed a half-dozen whiskies, I could not repulse an urge to purloina mahogany and brass-plated Bilderberg gavel [1. A small hammer used byachairman, auctioneer etc.,to call for order or attention.2.A hammer used by masons to trim rough edgesoff 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 wayfor American Secret Servicemen and Special Branch bodyguards. The Bilderbergersarrived later, mostly by way of a quiet entry through Exeter Airport 10 milesform Torquay. They held their hush-hush meetings and then, just as quietly,disappeared back to their respective banks, multinational corporations andgovernment jobs, perhaps a little more the wiser than when they arrived.

Since that time, I have gradually been able to piece the Bilderberg puzzleinto shape................

If you want to read a similar account by journalist Jim Tucker from The Spotlightwho actually attended Bilderberg Conferences to have a good 'nose round' check this out.

Chapter 4 of this book, Bilderberg and the Media, appears in the Media Control and Power section of this site

'Bilderberg Group, The Global Manipulators', by Robert Eringer, Pentacle Books, 1980. Available from:

Donald A Martin

Bloomfield Books
26 Meadow Lane
Sudbury
Suffolk CO10
U.K.

Why not ask your library to order this book so other people in your areacan read it.

Buy Caroll Quigley's Books here http://www.best.com/~jdulaney/quigley.html

From his autobiography 'The Time of My Life'. Published by Penguin, 1989.

[Talking about contradictions in the post-war Labour party]

Before long a benign providence developed another mechanism for assistingimpecunious European socialists to learn something of the outside world -the international conference. Konigswinter performed this functionfor Germany. The Council of Europe covered Western Europe as a whole. TheNATO Parliamentarians Conference brought politicians from Europe, the UnitedStates, and Canada together once a year. Before long there was alsoan annual meeting in Bermuda of British MP's and members of Congress. Thenthe great American foundations of Ford and Rockefeller took a hand. Therewas aproliferation of cultural conferences in all parts of the world,including the Congress for Cultural Freedom, where I could meet people lessdirectly involved in politics such as the poet Stephen Spender, the philosopherRaymond Aron, and the novelist Mary McCarthy. I later discovered that theCongress for Cultural Freedom, like Encounter magazine, was financedby the CIA; both nevertheless made a useful contribution to the quality ofWestern life at that time.

Of all these meetings, the most valuable to me while I was in oppositionwere the Bilderberg Conferences - so called after the Bilderberg Hotel nearArnhem, where the first was held in 1954. They were the brain-childof Joseph Retinger, a Pole who had settled in England after the Great War,married the daughter of the socialist intellectual, E.D. Morel, and workedas 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 GeneralSikorski, and despite his extreme physical disability was parachuted intoPoland to make contact with the Home Army. After the war he organisedthe Congress of the Hague, which launched the European Movement. Convincedof the need for a similar forum to strengthen unity between Europe and NorthAmerica, he approached Hugh Gaitskell, General Colin Gubbins, who had commandedSOE during the war, and several leading politicians and businessmen who wereconcerned to strengthen Atlantic cooperation. They asked Prince Bernhardof the Netherlands to act as Chairman, because they rightly thought it wouldbe difficult to find apolitician whose objectivity would be abovesuspicion, and who could call Cabinet ministers from any country to orderwithout causing offence.

I was invited to the first meeting and later acted as convener of the Britishwho attended; Reggie Maudling and I were the British members of the SteeringCommittee. Retinger and his successor, the Dutch Socialist Ernst vander Beughel, who later became Chairman of KLM, were extraordinarily successfulin persuading busy men to give up a weekend for private discussions, thoughthey found it more difficult to attract ministers than politicians out ofoffice.

The Bilderberg conferences inevitably aroused jealousy, because they wereexclusive, and suspicion, because they were private. In America theywere attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europeas a capitalist plot to undermine socialism. They were neither.Immense care was taken to invite a fair balance from all politicalparties, and to include trade unionists as well as businessmen. Thoughthe 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 hadto listen to socialists and trade unionists - and vice versa. Experiencehas taught me that lack of understanding is the main cause of all evil inpublic affairs - as in private life. Nothing is more likely to produceunderstanding than the sort of personal contact which involves people notjust as officials or representatives, but also as human beings. Thatis why the Commonwealth Scholarships, which bring students from America andthe Commonwealth to Britain, have made a contribution to good relations betweenthe Anglo-Saxon democracies out of all proportion to their cost.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Revised (in 2000) versions of this article are available here inWord 6.0 Format and Rich Text Format

From 'Common Sense' issue 16 - published in 1994
Common Sense is the journal of the Edinburgh conference of Socialist Economists - an independent left collective in Edinburgh
Common Sense is distributed by AK Press in Edinburgh

by Alfred Mendes

To elicit some sense of logic out of current events - with America firmlyensconced in the role of 'World Policeman' and the entry of NATO on to theBalkan scene - it is necessary to recall some crucial events from 1917 onwards.

The vast wealth amassed by the Vanderbilts, Astors, Morgans and other suchlikeat the turn of the century fuelled the extraordinary growth of the Americanmass-production machine, and the resultant corporations were soon lookingabroad with the intention of extending their interests. On the other hand,the Bolshevik's seizure of power in Russia in 1917 created, in effect, acall to wage-earners worldwide for the setting up of a marxist system ofsocial distribution of wealth - the very antithesis of the capitalist systemof garnering profit from the wealth created by labour. The corporatists nowhad 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 toavoid this dichotomy being seen as one of ideology per se, the inequity inherentwithin their capitalist system being too vulnerable to scrutiny. No, thestruggle had to be seen by their public as one of 'Good Nation' against 'EvilNation'; 'White' against 'Red'. This would be made easier both by ownershipof the means of communication - the media - and the subornation of politicalparties 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 corporateAmerica, the key stall-holder in the world market, and the group that wouldstand to lose the most in the case of failure. For them, political controlwas now important: politicians could not be entrusted with the task of avoiding,repudiating the temptations of this new ideology. Control was accomplishedin 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 thatin the first two years of Truman's presidency, of the 125 principal appointmentsmade: 56 were corporate lawyers, industrialists and bankers (one of whomJames Forrestal of Dillon, Read & Co., was probably the earliest andmost vigorous promoter of what was soon to be known as the 'Cold War'); and31 were high ranking military officers. And by the formation of the influential'advisory' groups. A survey of these reveals that, contrary to the popularview of America as the epitome of a pluralistic, competitive society of 'ruggedindividuals', its corporations display a very high degree of cohesion ofpurpose, and this cohesion is exemplified by their manifest urge to formcabbalistic groups, many of a pseudo-social character. This is a phenomenonthat should come as no surprise to anyone who has attended an Americanuniversity, with its fraternity ethos which invariably leads to the masoniclodge on graduation. Indeed, when it is recalled that the first president,Washington, and nine of the signatories to the Declaration of Independencein 1776 were known freemasons, and that subsequent rituals used for bothWashington's inauguration and the laying of the Capitol's cornerstone weremasonic - then it would seem that this phenomenon has certain traditionalroots.

The result is such groups as:

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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 thecreation of an intricate web of influence (The Bohemian Club, with tonguein cheek, cautions its members - and equally influential guests - on entryto the Grove: "Spiders Weave Not Here!" - as if a spider could exist withoutweaving its web!). The following table covering nine of such clubs/groupsillustrates concisely the complexity and scale of the web, as it existedin the early 1970s. (Two points: the Bilderberg is not included because ofits structural ambiguity noted above, and it must be kept in mind that eachfigure represents a top-ranking executive in the Americanmilitary/industrial/banking complex):

KEY:

BO=Bohemian Club

PU=Pacific Union

CA=Californian Club

RA=Rancheros

LI=Links Club

CE=Century Club

BC=Business Council

CFR=Council for Foreign Relations

CED=Council for Economic Development

Two notorious, well-documented examples of the use to which this influencewas put are:

1. 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).

2. 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 democraticaccountability, as well as a disregard of national frontiers, this latteraspect due largely to the nowmultinational nature of the corporations. Therewere even a number of cases in the 20's and 40's when such activities militatedagainst the national interest of their own country - to the benefitof Germany in the instances that follow.

The 1920's had been a particularly crucial period in Germany because of theextraordinarily rapid rise to power of the Nazis: what had been a rag-tagof street dissidents had, within a decade, become a well-uniformed,well-organised, and obviously well-financed organisation. Above all, it projecteda very marked anti-Bolshevik bias. This attracted Corporate America, andcontacts were soon made. International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) andSullivan & Cromwell were among the more high profile firms to do so.In the case of both firms, the German contact used was Dr Gerhardt AloisWetrick, Hitler's financial agent - and through him deals were made withBaron 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 theGestapo in particular (it was in von Schroeder's villa in Köln on the7th January 1933 that Hitler and Franz von Papen had met to plan detailsfor their subsequent seizure of power, and von Schroeder was later made SSGruppenfuehrer).

In ITT's case, in return for directorships for both Westrick and von Schroederin ITT, the latter acquired a number of German firms, the most intriguingof which was a 28% share in the Focke-Wulf aircraft company, whose aircraftsaw much service in the ensuing World War 2 much to the discomfiture of Alliedservicemen and civilians. Moreover, in 1967, ITT were paid $25 million incompensation by the American government for war damages to its factoriesin Germany!

For its part, Sullivan & Cromwell acquired as clients:

1. I.G. Farben, the German chemical conglomerate which, in 1937, developed the deadly nerve gas, Tabun.

2. The well-known Swedish ball-bearing manufacturer, SKF, which supplied 60% of its production to Germany - primarily for its armaments.

3. 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 oligarchyis its public domain - as above - must mean that there are many more of likeimport and gravity not in the public domain, and any concerned curiosityabout such unpublicised activities, or hidden agenda, is therefore equallyjustified.

Balkan Backdrop

The current Balkan crisis, and America's role in it, offers an opportunityto indulge this curiosity. However, any examination of a subject as complexas the Balkans must necessarily be preceded by a brief historical reviewof the region: the Roman/Orthodox split in the Christian church and thesubsequent five centuries of Muslim Ottoman rule ensured that the Yugoslaviathat 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 thenorth and the Bulgars in the east. The setting up of the Catholic State ofCroatia under the fascist Ustase in the wake of the German massacres of OrthodoxSerbs - and jews, muslims and gypsies on a lesser scale. Another area ofdiscord during the war was the split between the ultra-Serbian royalist Chetniksunder Mihailovich and the more ethnically-mixed communist/republican Partisansunder Tito, a Coat (it is strange that this historical aspect has not beentaken into account by any publicised analysis of the current crisis: afterall, the 'Bosnian Serbs' are self-proclaimed Chetniks, a minority group amongSerbs as a whole, and to imply that they - the Chetniks - reflect the aspirationsof 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, Americaemerged with three-quarters of the world's invested capital and two-thirdsof the world's industrial capacity - Russia with its infrastructure decimated.The distribution of American aid that followed was significant in the choiceof countries so aided, and the relative amounts involved. Russia was deniedaid, and the reason given by the US for this denial (which, incidentally,circumvented UN agreements) was that, at the critical Moscow Conference whichstarted on the 10th March 1947, the Russians had spurned America's gesturesof compromise - conveniently disregarding the fact that on the 12th March1947 (just two days into the conference) Truman had dropped his bombshellof a speech to Congress - his 'Doctrine', which was, in effect, an ultimatumto Stalin: you're either with us - or against us! The Marshall Plan was announcedthree months later. Between 1946 and 1961 the US distributed $8.7 billionof economic aid and $7.9 billion of military aid to the five dictatorshipsof Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam and Formosa (Taiwan). Thiswas more aid than Europe - with a greater population - received over thesame period. Furthermore, of the economic aid received by Europe, fascistSpain 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 inthe late '40s (and protégé of James Forrestal), supplied theofficial rationale that lay behind the above facts concisely in articleshe wrote at the time under the pseudonym of 'Mr. X'. He stated "The UnitedStates has it in its power to increase enormously the strains under whichSoviet policy must operate - and to promote tendencies which eventually findtheir 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 hadbeen an alliance of convenience, of pragmatism (e.g. contrary to America'sassurance to Russia in May '42 that a 'second front' would be opened up laterthat year, this, in fact, did not occur until June '44 - when it became clearto the Western Allies that the Russians were advancing inexorably westwards).Thus, at war's end in 1945, the Western Allies, for their part, immediatelyreverted to their pre-war anticommunist strategy. This entitled the recruitmentof key Nazis - such as the chief of Intelligence on the Eastern Front, GeneralReinhard Gehlen (who, with the assistance of the CIA, formed the West GermanIntelligence agency, the BND), and the channeling of many others - such aswanted war criminals like Eichmann, Barbie, Mengele et al - to sanctuaryin the West (primarily South America). This channel ran through Italy, andunderstandably, due to its geographic proximity and its close relationshipwith the Vatican, many of the escapees were Croatian Ustase (including thePoglavnik, Croatian Fuehrer, Ante Pavelic, a wanted war criminal). This escapechannel was a Vatican-controlled operation run by a Croatian priest, Fr.Kronoslav Draganovich, Secretary of the Confraternity of San Girolamo inRome, member of Interarium, and a man, moreover, who co-operated with ReinhardGehlen, whose brother was a secretary to the SMOM (see below) in Rome. Americanintelligence (OSS at that time), under the command of Allen Dulles in Bern,co-operated with this operation, naming it RATLINES after their own escaperoute for downed Air Force crews in Europe in the war. And with Tito nowin power, over the next few years bands of Krizari (Crusaders) were recruitedby 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 popularcommunist-led party, EAM - with its military wing, ELAS - would have assumedpower in Greece in 1944 had not the British intervened militarily with twodivisions, as a result of the (then) secret deal Churchill had made withStalin in October '44: in effect, allowing the British a free hand in Greecein return for Russia having a freehand in Bulgaria and Romania. The subsequentguerrilla war waged by ELAS, with Tito's assistance, was held up as the'bête noire' by Truman in his 'Doctrine Speech' in '47, calling forthe West to rally to his crusade against the "un-American, communist wayof life". In the following year, 1948, two crucial events occurred in Yugoslavia- now understandably in a parlous economic state: 1) Tito broke off relationswith Stalin, and 2) America loaned Yugoslavia $1 billion. Disregarding anyquestion of a causal line here (inasmuch as the chronology of the two eventsis not to hand), the consequences were that Tito stopped assisting the Greekrebellion - which collapsed as a result - and embarked on a debt-ridden coursewhich eventually left to the dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation. AndAmerica had now replaced Britain as the broker in the region.

Roman Gladiators

Furthermore, any historical review of the region would be inadequate if itdid not include the role that religion in general, and the Roman CatholicChurch in particular, has played in it - but in view of the schism that existsin the Church between the oligarchic 'Integralists' and the liberal 'BaseCommunities', it should be noted here that any reference/s to 'the church'is/are directed towards the former: the autocrats in the Vatican. The involvementof the church in the region was inevitable, given its geographical juxtapositiontom and historical association with Slovenia and Croatia - long regardedby the Church as a bastion against both the Orthodox Serbs (since Pope John10th's crowning of Tomislav as King of Croatia in 925 AD) and later, theMuslim Ottomans.

One significant aspect of the Vatican/Yugoslav relationship during the earlypost-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 farmore intransigent attitude towards the latter (as exemplified by their oppositionto Tito's agrarian reform, their stance over the Istria confrontation, andtheir ban on priests joining the long-established Priests' Associations)than towards the former. This could only have been a case of politicalopportunism aimed at Tito's comparative weakness. It was certainly not acase of religious principle.

Given their common, fervent anti-communist bias, it was also inevitable thatthere would be cooperation between Corporate America and the Vatican (asalready referred to). Perhaps the most active Catholic group which so co-operatedwas the Venerable Sovereign Military & Hospitaller Order of St. Johnof Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta, better known s the Knights of Malta (SMOMfor short), an Order which, like the Vatican itself, is based in Rome andenjoys sovereign status, issuing its own passports and stamps. One of theSMOM's functions in the RATLINES operation was, in fact, the supplying offalse passports to the Nazis on their way to sanctuary. Other examples ofthis co-operation in the post-war period were the setting up of theanti-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 Americansonly in 1927, it is a measure of that country's influential standing thatby the 1940s the American Cardinal Spellman held the post of 'Grand Protector'within the Order, whereas King Leopold of Belgium and Queen Wilhelmina ofHolland were mere 'protectors' within their respective countries! To namebut a few of its members, past and present, is to reveal its élitismand 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 negotiatedthe Hitler/Vatican Concordat of 1933.

This Concordat was an agreement that meant, in effect, that a governmentwith an ostensibly strong anti-religious bias had taken the seeminglyextraordinary step of imposing a church tithe on its populace! Tounderstand this apparent paradox it is necessary to recall the ties thatbound Germany to Rome for some eight centuries (926-1806) under the aegisof the Holy Roman Empire, with its succession of German kings. The unavoidableconclusion 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 arethus comprehensible. That these ties still exist today is attested to bythe facts that 1) the Concordat is still in effect, and 2) since World War2 the German political scene has been dominated by Christian Democratic(Catholic) parties. Indeed there can be no other rational explanation forGermany's extraordinary action on the 15th January 1992 when, contrary tothe advice and warnings given them by the UN, EEC and Bosnia itself (Itzebegovichad even gone to Bonn in a vain attempt to dissuade them from taking thisstep) they recognised the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, therebysanctioning the violent outbursts of nationalism that had occurred as a resultof the earlier Declarations of Independence by those two autonomous membersof the Yugoslav Federation. It was inevitable that the German action wouldlead to the Bosnian débacle - and it is difficult to believe thatGermany was not aware of this.

Enter NATO

The collapse of the communist states in the East caused many in the Westto query the further need for NATO. It is now evident that this query wasbased on two grave misconceptions: 1) the NATO had been set up solely toresist Soviet expansion, and 2) that the collapse of the latter had meantthe end of the marxist ideal. Had this been so, logic would have decreedimmediate redundancy for NATO! By the very nature of it’s conceptionin April 1949, NATO operates under American patronage and hegemony. Patronage,as attested to under its Article 3 whereby $25 billion of military aid wasgiven to its partners by the US in the first twenty years only of its existencehegemony, as attested to by a glance at NATO's command structure which revealsthat, of its three 'commands' -SAFEUR or SHAPE (covering Europe), SACLANT(the Atlantic) and CINCHAN (the Channel) - the first two named, the crucialareas, 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 lessa person than George Kennan (once again) when he stated that, when NATO wasformed, the State department considered ".the communist danger in its mostthreatening 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 corporateAmerica. This now calls for a closer look at NATO's Article 9, which empoweredthe setting up of subsidiary bodies, such as civilian institutes, militarystaff and other such. The fact the GLADIO is such a 'subsidiary body' isenough to cause unease. GLADIO (aka GLAIVE, aka ZWAARD) is a secret anti-Leftterrorist group set up by the Clandestine Planning Committee of SHAPE in1959. Recent judicial investigations into political corruption in Italy haveunearthed evidence linking GLADIO to post-war terrorist acts in that country(such as the Bologna bombing). One such act - though an abortive one - wasthe attempted coup d'etat in 1970 led by Prince Valerio Borghese and hisneo-fascist protégé Stephano delle Chiaie - a known terrorist.Borghese, a fascist and naval commander in the war, had been sentenced todeath for war crimes by the Italian Resistance at war's end, but rescuedby James Jesus Angleton, who headed the OSS-controlled American/British SpecialCounter-Intelligence Team, SCI-Z, then operating in Italy (Angleton laterbecame head of CIA Counter-Intelligence, and throughout his career retainedexclusive control over CIA liaison with the Vatican). Borghese, for his part,played a leading role in post-war fascist politics, and was a Bailiff GrandCross of Honour and Devotion in the SMOM.

However, GLADIO must be seen in its wider, proper context: namely, thesubornation of postwar Italian political parties by the American oligarchin order to ensure that the communist party did not attain power in thatcounty. In March 1948, Secretary of State General George Marshall told theEuropean nations bluntly that ".benefits under ERP (Marshall Plan) will cometo an abrupt end in any country that votes communism to power". Concurrently,the CIA played a pivotal, funding role in this subornation, partly with theco-operation of Catholic Action, which was led by Doctor Luigi Gedda whocreated 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 thatthe CIA alone channeled into the coffers of the Christian Democrats and theSocialists between 1946 and 1972 fuelled the corruption now in the publiceye.

Crossing the Adriatic brings us once more to the Balkan crisis. Many aspectsof it appear very puzzling to the public. There are many relevant questionsnot asked, and many such questions not answered. In the light of thesecretiveness 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 wasBritain 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 Carringtonchosen 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 Secretaryof State? Or on the board of the armaments manufacturer, General Dynamic?Was the German decision in any was influenced by the fact that the Vaticanhad already 'recognised' Slovenia and Croatia (indeed the first sovereignbody so to do)? Or in any way connected to the fact that two crucial NATOposts - that of Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General of PoliticalAffairs - were held by Germans? And was there a causal link here? As forBritain's behaviour: it can be explained in no other way than as the behaviourof 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 fromits avowed readiness in June '92 to support peace-keeping under the umbrellaof the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) formed in1972, through policing of the 'No-Fly Zone' over Bosnia - to its currentfunction as UN 'hitman'. This encroachment on to the scene reveals that,behind all the well-publicised, misleading posturings of politicians, statesmanand 'peace-makers', it - NATO - has ingratiated itself into a key positionin the region - with the ultimate authority of military supremacy. Far frombeing redundant now that the Cold War is over, it is preparing to play amore active, high-profile role in the now-enlarged European theatre. Thiswill be in the form of its new subsidiary body: the Allied Command EuropeRapid Reaction Force - or ARRC for short. This was set up in October '92as a result of a review undertaken in June '90. It is expected to be fullyoperational in 1995, and will presumably augment that other rapid reactionforce of the US Army, its Central Command - or CENTCOM (of 'Stormin' Norman'fame) - which was formed in 1983 primarily to 'protect' (control) the Mid-Eastoilfields, 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 bysuch as George Bush and like Corporatists. here in Britain the public hasbeen subjected over the past decade and a half to a PR exercise boostingthe benefits of the 'Free Market', an exercise of such intensity and breadththat it - the public - has been rendered comatose, thus allowing the Toryrepresentatives of corporations to side-line the Trade Unions and dismantleall the hard-worn public services. That this had been done in a duplicitousmanner is attested to by the fact that businessmen, politicians and mediamoguls alike indulge in a plethora of double-speak: capitalism becomes 'FreeMarket'; cheaper labour become either 'a more competitive society' or 'amore flexible market' and so on, ad infinitum. The Corporate Spider weavesits web!

Bibliography

Ratlines, by Mark Aarons and John Loftus, Heinemann, 1991.

Church and State in Yugoslavia since 1945, Stella Alexander, Cambridge UniversityPress, 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 numberE9615, 1971.

Yearbook of International Organisations 1991-92, 9th edition, K.G. Sauer.

The Hôtel de Bilderberg

At a small hotel near Arnhem in the deeply wooded uplands of eastern Hollandon May 29, 30, and 31, 1954, a group of eminent statesmen, financiers, andintellectuals from the principal nations of Europe and the United Statesmet together in, perhaps, the most unusual international conference everheld 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 participantswere pledged not to repeat publicly what was said in the discussions. Everyperson present-Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, leaders of political parties,heads of great banks and industrial companies, and representatives of suchinternational organizations as the European Coal and steel Community, aswell as academicians-was magically stripped of his office as he entered thedoor, and became a simple citizen of his country for the duration of theconference. Thus everybody could and did say what he really thought withoutfear of international, political, or financial repercussions.

That meeting and the subsequent ones that stemmed from it, which have hada great if indefinite impact on the history of our times, are, perhaps, intthis writer's opinion, Prince Bernhard's proudest achievement in the fieldof Western unity and international amity.

It was not Bernhard's original idea, but had its inception in the brilliantbrain of Dr Joseph H. Retinger. Retinger was an extraordinary character whoflitted through Europe talking on intimate terms with Prime Ministers, labourleaders, 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 parentswere landed gentry. When he went to the Sorbonne in Paris in 1906, at theage of eighteen, this boy talked his way into the heart of that city's literaryand artistic life, and was called friend by such as André Gide, Giraudoux,François Mauriac, Maurice Ravel, and the raffish Marquis Boni deCastellane. When he moved on to England, Herbert Asquith, his wife, outspokenMargot, and Lord Balfour took him into their circle, and his most intimatefriend 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 fora free Poland made him uniquely unpopular. The Central Powers put a priceon his head, the Allies banned him from all their countries, and the UnitedStates threw him into jail. These experiences taught him to be a better diplomat.

In World War II Retinger was closely associated with General Sikorsky, headof the Polish Government in Exile, as liaison man with the other exiledGovernments. In 1944 General Sir Colin Gubbins of The S.O.E. (the super-secretSpecial Operations Executive) arranged for him to be parachuted into Polandwith several million dollars for the Polish Resistance. At the age of fifty-sixRetinger jumped at night into a field in enemy territory, and accomplishedhis mission. However, his legs became paralysed, probably as a result ofthe 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 hisone impassioned, idealistic purpose of uniting and strengthening the Westernworld against the danger from the East.

Jackson says, "He was a sort of Eminence grise of Europe, a Talleyrand withoutportfolio." Certainly he had almost as many adventures as Ian Fleming's famoussecret-service operative James Bond.

Retinger was a frail, delicate little man with a deeply seamed face and quizzicaleyes behind blue-tinted spectacles. His big jaw was never still, for he talkedvolcanically. 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 achievedhis purpose by very devious means. But nevertheless he was fearless anddetermined, a tremendously gallant guy."

Though people persist in calling Retinger an eighteenth-century man functioningin the twentieth century, he was not that at all. He cam,e straight out ofthe Renaissance. Instead of the sceptical, précieuse attitude typicalof the eighteenth century, his Jesuitical conviction that the end justifiedthe means, and a Borgian aptitude for intrigue; but the ends he sought werenever selfish. They were good.

Though his name is virtually unknown except to the initiates, he made morehistory in his secret way than many a man who moved to the sound of trumpetsand the howl of motor-cycle sirens. According to the official publicationof the European Centre of Culture, "Retinger was the key figure in most ofthe great European union. The League of European Economic Cooperation (fromwhich evolved the Common Market), the European Movement, and . the EuropeanCentre of Culture would not have seen the light without him. The Congressof Europe at The Hague was his doing, and the Council of Europe grew outof that."

Being above all a realist, Retinger understood that even a united Europecould not stand by itself without America. In 1952 he became deeply concernedabout the rising tide of antAmericanism in practically every country of WesternEurope. It was not confined to Communist-in?influenced or left-wing circles,but was equally prevalent among conservatives and liberals. The United Stateswas disliked, feared, and sneered at with a unanimity that was remarkableamong the peoples of Europe. This feeling threatened the solidarity of theWestern world's defences against Communism.

Retinger was not the type of man to sit wringing his hands. He evolved abrilliant plan for coping with this situation, but he needed powerful assistanceto put it into effect. So he asked his friend Dr Paul Rijkens to get himan appointment with Prince Bernhard, who has described their meeting:

"It all stated when Retinger came to me and sat here in this room and toldme 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 MarshallPlan, military assistance, NATO, etc., which had done so much for all ofus. I suppose it was partly the natural human instinct to bite the hand thatfeeds you, and partly real grievances. I said to him, 'Yes, you're quiteright. It's very bad.' Retinger said, 'Well, would you like to do somethingabout it?' And I said, 'Of course.'"

Sitting on the edge of an easy chair in Bernhard's trophy-filled study, withhis cane between his spindly legs, his inevitable cigarette burning furiously,and his eyes shooting sparks behind his blue-tinted spectacles, Retingeroutlined his plan for bringing about better understanding between the touchy,suspicious Europeans and Americans. It consisted of two parts. The firstwas to get the leaders of opinion in the most important European countriesto make an appraisal of where the Americans were wrong, apart from beingrich,m powerful, generous, and rather stupid, and what they could do to putthings right.

The second was to present this frank critique to leaders of American opinionand give them an opportunity to answer the indictment at a completely privatemeeting 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 vanZeeland thinks about it." (Van Zeeland was Prime Minister of Belgium.)

Van Zeeland thought something should be done, and quickly. Reinforced byhis approval, Bernhard went to work with Retinger reckoned, could supplythe answers. The idea was to get two people from each country who would givethe conservative and liberal slant. Then Bernhard, using his personal prestigeand royal leverage, induced, with the help of Retinger, who knew practicallyall of them, most of those selected to co-operate.

It was quite a list. Van Zeeland wrote a paper for Belgium, Hugh Gaitskelland Lord Portal spoke for Great Britain, Prime Minister Alcide de Gasperifor Italy, Foreign Minister Ole Bjørn Kraft of Denmark for Scandinavia;Guy Mollet (former Socialist Prime Minister) and Conservative Prime MinisterPinay for France, and Max Brauer, Otto Wolff von Amerongen, and Dr Müllerfor 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 peopleof different countries and different parties gave the same reasons for dislikingAmericans, although there were, of course, some people with special grousesof their own. Bernhard, Retinger, and Rijkens synthesized the answers intoa single report covering the main criticisms. Then Bernhard sent itconfidentially to some of his American friends with the proposal that theyorganize an answer.

The election of 1952 was in full swing in the United States, and politicalbrickbats were flying. Nobody had any time for Prince Bernhard. Averell Harrimansaid, "I won't touch it. It's dynamite." Eisenhower said, "Great! I'd liketo 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 tothe United States-and, incidentally, got the bad news from Walter Reed. Hesaw a number of American politicians, and after several more rebuffs he wentto his friend Bedell Smith, who was then head of the C.I.A. Smith said, "Whythe hell didn't you come to me in the first place?"

Even then things moved slowly. Smith became Under-Secretary of State fornewly elected President Eisenhower, and was engulfed in the business of puttinga 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 Corporationof Detroit, who was a member of the newly formed Committee for a NationalTrade Policy under the presidency of Senator Robert Taft's brother, CharlesTaft. This committee undertook to draft an American reply, and a number ofprivate citizens. Other famous Americans were invited. Most of the administrationofficials ducked nervously, so the American delegation was rather weightedtowards industry, but it included such eminent Americans as Joseph E. Johnson,of the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, Dean Rusk, then head ofthe 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 untilMay 1954. By then, is spite of Eisenhower's personal popularity, the UnitedStates was at an all-time nadir of popularity in Europe. As the Europeanssaw it, a soldier was in the White House, even though he was the least militantof military men. The Government was in the hands of the conservative RepublicanParty for the first time in twenty years. And, worst of all, Senator McCarthywas roaring through the land witch-hunting for Reds. His arrogant stoogeshad just completed their book-burning tour of American embassies in Europe,and the whole American career image of America, erstwhile land of democracyand freedom, was covered with mud.

Under these circ*mstances it looked as though there would be a heated sessionat the Hôtel de Bilderberg. Prince Bernhard, who was chairman, said,"The meeting was most encouraging because people accepted the idea that therewould be no publicity, and everybody could speak for himself, irrespectiveof his position, quite frankly-and fight!"

At the memory Prince Bernhard's eyes lit up, and he said, "It was a beautifulmeeting because sparks were flying like crazy between Americans like C. D.Jackson and Britishers like Sir Oliver Franks and Denis Healey and HughGaitskell."

Jackson himself described the meeting as follows:

"It was all very new and different. We were tucked away in a forest way backin Holland. There were no reporters. Tight security with guards all overthe hotel. IN the opening hours every one was uneasy, nervous, sniffing eachother like strange dogs. They were afraid to talk very much.

"Prince Bernhard was everywhere using his charming wiles. People began tothaw. Then they began to fight, which was good. The Prince kept things inhand. When feeling got too tense he was able to relax people with just theright witty crack, or assert his authority. Though he is so charming, heis made of pretty stern stuff. When he was to restore order he does so insuch a way that no one can take offence. But there is no fooling. Order isrestored."

Naturally the Europeans were continually needling the Americans about McCarthy.Many of them seemed genuinely fearful that the United States was headingfor a Fascist dictatorship. Therefore, on the third day, Prince Bernhardannounced, "Even though it is not on the agenda, there has been so much talkof McCarthyism that, if there is time, I am going to ask Mr Jackson to tellus the American view on that."

There was time, and Jackson stood up to address the meeting. He is a bigman, well over six feet tall, fourteen stone of muscular weight with a bigdomed head and a bold, jutting profile; impressive by his stature and hisslow, 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, "Weare certain to get this kind of supercharged, emotional freak from time totime." Then he reached back into history for the same sort of demagogue,telling them of the spectacular but short-lived careers of Father Coughlinand Huey Long.

He said that he knew it was hard of Europeans to understand how a Senatorof the President's own party could say things on the floor of the Senatecompletely 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 ofSenator McCarthy, but wrong to be fearful that he was the first step towardsFascism.

Finally Jackson made a rash prediction: "Whether McCarthy dies by an assassin'sbullet or is eliminated in the normal American way of getting rid of boilson the body politic, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meetinghe will be gone from the American scene."

The fact that within a comparatively short time McCarthy was rebuked by theSenate and lost virtually all his prestige and power made the Europeans feelthat they had heard the truth about America. George McGhee of the UnitedStates Department of State says, "The really bad misunderstandings betweenEuropeans and Americans were dissipated at the first Bilderberg. Since thenthere has never been such a sharp division between us and Europe."

The first Bilderberg Conference was such a success in promoting realunderstanding across the Atlantic that its sponsors decided to continue themeetings. A permanent Steering Committee was set up to plan the agenda forfuture meetings and decide whom to invite according to the subjects to bediscussed. Dr Retinger became permanent secretary, until he died and wassucceeded by Ernst van der Beugel, who, incidentally, said to the writer,"I am allergic to international groups. I attended my first Bilderberg meetingwith great reserve, but I was impressed by it and remained impressed."

Joseph E. Johnson became the first Secretary on the American side. Otherwisethe organization was kept as loose as possible to allow maximum flexibility.To insure this the Steering Committee tries to have a turnover of at leasttwenty percent. of new faces at each meeting. This was made clear at theoutset, so that people who are not asked back every time would not considerit an affront.

Combined with this is the unwritten rule that anybody who has ever been toa Bilderberg Conference should be able to feel that he can, in a privatecapacity, call on any former member he has met. To this end a list of namesand addresses is maintained to which all participants have access. This makespossible an expanding continuation of association for people who might nototherwise have met.

Three days at a Bilderberg Conference are not only a stimulating but alsoan extremely exhausting experience, especially for Bernhard and the othermembers 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 againuntil seven o'clock. Fifteen minutes to wash up, and then an executive sessionof the Steering Committee. That lasts an hour, and then we have dinner. Afterthat 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, butwe 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 regularsessions are attended by from fifty to eighty people. Each meeting is heldin a different country, but follows the same pattern. An entire hotel istaken over and closely guarded. The members all live together, eat and drinktogether, for three days. Wives are not invited. Dr Rijkens says, "More importantthings are done and better understandings are often arrived at in privateconversations at lunch or dinner than in the regular sessions. Through theyears we have achieved a sort of brotherhood of friendship and trust."

The expenses or each meeting are borne by private subscription in the hostcountry, and Prince Bernhard always presides-though not by his own choice.At the very first meeting he tried rotating the chairmanship, putting vanZeeland in the second day and Mr Coleman the third. It did not work. Theother Europeans thought that van Zeeland was too political and the AmericanDemocrats felt that Coleman was too old-guard Republican. They all beggedhim to become permanent chairman. Because he was royal and therefore apolitical,and, furthermore, came from a small nation with no large axes to grind, hewas, in fact, the logical choice. In addition every one agreed that he handledthe meetings extremely well. Mr Heinz says, "If Prince Bernhard had not existedRetinger would have had to invent him."

There was also the fact that his royalty gave him considerable leverage ininducing these very eminent men to give up their pressing affairs to attendthe 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 intosomething fine and useful that's good. The authority with which you can askpeople to attend meetings is important. On the other hand, you don't geteighty outstanding people to drop everything and go off to a foreign countryjust for snobbism. The way you manage the thing and the importance of theenterprise are what draws them."

Meanwhile Retinger brought in many men of the non-Communist but radical leftwho might not have responded to an invitation from Prince Bernhard. However,even these would probably not have consented to attend a conference withthe men of the conservative right had they not been reassured by having inthe chair a completely non-political figure. As Dr Rijkens said "No one butBernhard could have induced such old antagonists as Guy Mollet and AntoinePinay to sit at the same table."

Prince Bernhard in his methodical way prepares very carefully for each meetingby an intensive study of all the subjects on the agenda. Then he takes copiousnotes at the meetings, and at the end of each session tries to sum up whathas been said and perhaps add a few impartial words of his own to clear theair. In spite of his preliminary work, Prince Bernhard confesses, "I alwaysgo to the meetings with a feeling of great nervousness. There are so manyexplosive possibilities. But it is always tremendously stimulating and enormouslyinteresting-in fact, great fun.

"One thing that worries me beforehand is suppose some key person does notshow up and the discussions are a flop? We have had very little trouble withthat."

One meeting Bernhard was particularly nervous about was the one at St SimonsIsland, Georgia. United States Senator J. William Fulbright, Senator Wileyand several American congressmen were coming for the first time. The ruleof the meetings is that each man is allowed five minutes to talk, and atthe end of this time the Prince is allowed five minutes to talk, and at theend of this time the Prince begins to make signals. But he generally givesthem a minute more before taking action. "Once or twice I've had to be unpleasantto somebody, but that is very difficult for me," he says. "It is also difficultto keep a big boy from talking too long. I swing my wristwatch in front ofhis face and say, 'Ah, ah, more than five minutes!' And if somebody makesa really short speech I say, 'Now that is wonderful. The shorter the speechthe 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 goingto do with the American politicians? You just can't shut up a United Statescongressman or senator. They aren't used to it."

Bernhard didn't quite know himself. But before the meeting he went to theAmerican politicians and in his most ingratiating way said, "Now, look,gentlemen, my American friends are afraid to tell you this, but we have hadthis rule about five-minute speeches at all our meetings. So would you bevery king and do me a favour, a personal favour, and stick to the rule, becauseI 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 troublewith was a European."

The only meeting, other than the first, at which Bernhard did not presideall the way through was the one in Switzerland in 1960. He arrived from oneof his "selling trips" looking utterly exhausted and with a bad cold. Afterpresiding at the opening session he developed virus pneumonia. He chose E.N. van Kleffens to take the chair. Prince Bernhard says, "This satisfiedeverybody, because van Kleffens had once served as President of the Assemblyof the U.N."

While the meeting went on Bernhard got sicker and sicker. Meanwhile, backat 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 talkedto her husband again and that his temperature had gone up. I said, 'I'llgo immediately and ask my colleague Professor Jordan, our specialist on internalmedicine, to go with me.'"

Professor Nuboer had made their reservations on K.L.M. and borrowed somemoney-it was Sunday and the banks were shut-when the Queen called back. "I'mgoing with you," she said. "I'm too worried to stay here. We'll go in a militaryplane."

Professor Nuboer says, "We found the Prince in the Conference Hotel nearLucerne. 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 wetook 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 nearlyevery one. At St Simons in 1957 the French, British, and Americans almostcame to blows over Suez. At another it was Quemoy and Matsu. The Europeanscould understand the American attitude about Formosa, but defending the off-shoreislands seemed to them military madness for the sake of tweaking the dragon'stail. "At least we made them understand the necessity of taking more interestin the Far East," says McGhee.

Other hot issues have been the Common Market and British and American attitudestowards 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 nearlyimpossible by the very nature and object of the conferences, which is notto 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 fingeron made Prince Bernhard wonder if its was worth while continuing. He sentout a query to that effect to the members. A storm of protest, especiallyfrom the Americans, convinced him that he should go on.

Perhaps the only way of arriving at some assessment of the work is to questionthose participants who play an active role in international affairs. Whenasked for an example of a Bilderberg accomplishment George McGhee said, "Ibelieve you could say the Treaty of Rome, which brought the Common Marketinto being, was nurtured at these meetings and aided by the main stream ofour discussions there. Prince Bernhard is a great catalyst."

The formation of an international corporation to finance industrial developmentin the Near East is another concrete result.

However, the intangible results are admittedly the greatest-the bringingtogether in friendship, even intimacy, of the leaders from many nations andthe effect of their confidential reports on the governments of their countries.An example is the case of the United States during President Eisenhower'sadministration. When asked if he thought Eisenhower had been influenced bythe 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 officialsthe green light to come to the conferences. Although C. D. Jackson and BedellSmith were in favour of it, there were a lot of people in the State Departmentwho thought one should not go. They would not allow their people to comeat first. Then after the first meeting they lifted the ban. Anybody couldcome. 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 mypeople go to the Bilderberg Conferences [Dr Gabriel Hauge]. I'm in favourof anything-any study of that kind which helps international understanding.The Bilderberg meetings enlightened me; I'd get viewpoints from other thanofficial channels. Not that I always agreed with them; there were so manypoints of view that somebody had to be wrong; but it was still importantto know them."

The present American Government is even closer to Bilderberg because PresidentKennedy has virtually staffed the State Department with what C.D. Jacksoncalls "Bilderberg alumni"-Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Under-Secretary ofState George W. Ball, George McGhee, Walter Rostow, McGeorge Bundy, ArthurDean, and Paul H. Nitse over at Defence. However, the Steering Committeetries to keep a fairly even balance between Republicans and Democrats.

Mr Ball recently said, "I think the most useful feature of the Bilderbergmeetings is the opportunity for responsible people in industry, statecraft,or politics to have a frank discussion where they will not be publicly quotedand are able to give their personal views without their remarks being consideredofficial.

"This is unique and without parallel. \the character of the meetings hasbeen shaped by the very devoted and astute leadership of Prince Bernhardhimself. Without his special position, intelligence and goodwill nothinglike this could come about."

Then the Under-Secretary of State added, "I certainly hope to continue togo 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 anopportunity to work in private, without violating the parliamentary tabooagainst 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 humanitynot only in Europe but in all the world. Furthermore, he is highly optimisticabout its chances of success.

"It may be oversimplification," Prince Bernhard said, "but I think that witha little bit of goodwill on both sides we will find practical solutions forthe British problem, the Commonwealth, and the so-called 'Outer Seven." Wewould apply the main lines of the Treaty of Rome in principle with certainprovisos. For example, it might take certain countries twenty years to adaptto its pattern of tree movement of labour, free movement of goods and rawmaterials, the lowest possible customs barriers or none, co-ordination ofindustry, 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 alwaysfight. If we could all agree beforehand in principle it would result, withoutdoubt, not in Utopia, but in an extremely strong and healthy Europe. Thisin turn would bring the United States into the economic community. It wouldencourage a great deal of free trade throughout the world.

"Now, the more free trade you have the more difficult you will make it forthe new countries of Africa and Asia to set up an autarchy and live in economicisolation, to adopt trade barriers and quotas which after a hundred yearsor more we are finding out don't pay. From sheer necessity these people willhave to join in free trade. And once you get that you can help an underdevelopedcounty much more easily than if there are a hundred and fifty thousandrestrictions. Also it would be easier for them-their national pride-to accepthelp. That to my mind is the best possible guaranty against Communist influence."

Within Europe itself Prince Bernhard would like to go even further than economicunion. "One thing we need for free exchange of goods is completeinterchangeability of money, a common currency. I'm flat out for that," hesaid. "And this implies a certain political unity. Here comes our greatestdifficulty. 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 isdifficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism tothe idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.

"Then there is, of course, national selfishness, putting internal problemsfirst. For instance, no nation in Europe has met its full NATO quota. Thereis 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 ofall before party politics or national advantage.

"This is the tragedy. Due to the freedom and democracy we cherish, we aren'table to achieve what we all basically want to do. We don't show the worldclearly enough that our way is better than the Communist way, because wequibble and throw bricks at each other's heads. Real unity comes only whenwe are scared-when the Soviets put the pressure on and the issue is war ornot 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 Bernhardoptimistically believes that it will arrive if the whole place is not blownup first. He foresees a United States of Europe in which borders are reducedto an absolute minimum, and there is a common currency, a common financialpolicy, a common foreign policy, and a common policy of trade. The nationswill give up so much of their sovereignty as is necessary to implement this.

However, the Prince thinks they will retain their national identities. "Eachcountry has its history and traditions, and the cultural, philosophical,and ethical backgrounds of which it can be extremely proud, and which makeus what we are," he said. "It would be extremely stupid to throw all thataway. It would be like blowing up your old house before you get a new onebuilt. I think the nations of the United States of Europe will want to keeptheir flags and their monarchs, certainly for the first fifty or one hundredyears, though in that case the monarchs should be jolly good-there will bemore demands on a person than ever before.

"What I say is let's abolish our borders in the sense that we are not anylonger going to curse our neighbours over them, or deep them out, or tryto 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, fiftyor a hundred hears from now, when the Iron Curtain may be rolled up and putaway. 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 looseningof discipline that will make it possible to bring those lost lands back intothe European sphere. "Allen Dulles laughs at me," he says, "but I think thatthe Russians will again become friends with us, as they have been before.

"For this I know, and even Allen dulles agrees, that Communism inside Russiais not the sacred shibboleth it used to be. A lot of Russians frankly admitthat they use it in other countries as propaganda in order to bring theminto their sphere. But that in Russia itself it is getting a little out ofdate. That's a lovely thought, but when it will come, or if it comes in time,who shall say.."

Preceeding extract from:

Hatch, Alden, 'H. R. H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands; an authorized biography'.
Subject : Bernhard Leopold, consort of Juliana, Queen of the Netherlands,
Harrap, 1962.

Chapter XXIV of his book 'The New Unhappy Lords'

Watch out for gratuitous 'anti-socialist' vitriol from this writer...... [ed.] See the rider on the links section of the main Bilderberg page

If the facts concerning the Royal Institute of International Affairs andthe Council on Foreign Relations be accepted, it will be seen that the properstudy of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothingthat happens can be understood. These elites, preferring to work in private,are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon eventshas therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.There are dozens of such agencies, and financial support received from oneor other or all three big American foundations - Rockefeller, Carnegie andFord - provides an infallible means of recognizing them. One of the mostblatant of these agencies, despite its adoption of a secret society technique,is the Bilderberg Group, which seems to have been inspired by an importantevent. In the year 1908, secret agents of the New York Money Power and theirWashington fuglemen had themselves transported in the dead of night to JekyllIsland off the coast of Georgia. As the result of their plotting there wascreated, four years later, the means whereby the Money Trust was enabledto seize control of the entire American economy through the mechanism ofthe Federal Reserve Board. In February 1957, a similarly hush-hush conferencetook place at St. Simons Island in the same region. A "summary" of theproceedings was entered by Senator Wiley, champion of the Left-wing, in theappendix of the Congressional Record. It referred to "the preservation ofpeace" under the auspices of Nato, which revealed nothing. The compositionof the gathering, however, was revealing. Nobody with Right-Wing views waspermitted to attend. Wiley was accompanied by Fulbright, both of the U.S.Foreign Affairs Committee. Sulzberger of the New York Times was there. Sowas the mysterious Gabriel Hauge, said by the Wall Street Journal to be "theexpert who tells Ike what to think". So was the only less mysterious GeorgeKennan, former Ambassador to Russia. So were the representatives of theRockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.A Supreme Court Judge was reported to have been present, although he didnot register. Westbrook Pegler, the courageous American columnist, believesthat he was Felix Frankfurter, the patron of Dean Acheson and Alger Hissamong other dubious proteges. There was also Lord Kilmuir, who as Sir DavidMaxwell Fyfe figured among that of a more improbablelooking Scot than couldbe imagined. What these agents of Financial Jewry were plotting was nothingto the benefit of the sovereign independence of the nations of the WesternWorld.

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, Friendlyand Ball, U.S.; Fritz Berg, Chairman, Federation of German Industries, Germany;M. Nuri Birgi, Secretary-General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkey; EugeneR. Black, President, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development;Robert R. Bowie, Ass. Secretary of State for Policy Planning, U.S.; McGeorgeBundy, Dean Faculty of ARts and Sciences, Harvard University; Hakon Christianson,Chairman, East Asiatic Company, Denmark; Walter Cisler, Presidedent, AtomicIndustrial Forum, U.S.; Pierre Commin, Secretary, French Socialist Party;B.D. Cooke, Director, Dominion Insurance Company, U.S.; Arthur H. Dean, Lawpartner of John Foster Dulles, formerly of Sullivan and Cromwell, U.S.; Jeande la Garde, French Ambassador to Mexico; Thomas E. Dewey, Attorney, formerGovernor of New York, U.S.; Sir William Eddlitt, Air Chief Marshal, RoyalInstitute, U.K.; Fritz Erler, Socialist M.P., Germany; John Ferguson, Attorney,Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly and Ball, U.S.; Lincoln Gordon, Professor, Consultantto Nato's "Three Wise Men"; Sir Colin Gubbins, Industrialist, U.K.; LawrenceR. Hafstead, Technical Adviser, Atomic Energy Commission; Jens ChristianHauge, 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.; HenryJ. 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.; PerJacobson, Man. Director, International Monetary Fund, Sweden; Georg KurtKeisinger, Director of Special Studies, Rockefeller Foundation; Pieter Liefnick,Director, International Monetary Fund, Netherlands; Imbriani Longo,Director-General, Banco Nazionale del lavoro, Italy; Paul Martin, MinisterHealth 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 ChemicalIndustries, Germany; Rudolf Mueller, Lawyer, Germany; Robert Murphy,Deputy-Under-Secretary of State U.S.; Frank C. Nash, Attorney former AssistantSecretary of Defence, U.S.; Geo. Nebolsine, Attorney, Coudert Bros, U.S.;Paul H. Nitze, Director, Policy Planning, State Department, U.S.; MoreheadPatterson, 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 toU.S., Netherlands; Dean Rusk, President, Rockefeller Foundation; Paul Rykans,Industrialist, Netherlands; J.L.S. Steele, Chairman, British InternationalChamber of Commerce, U.K.; Terkel M. Terkelson, Editor, Denmark; John M.Vorys, Member, Foreign Affairs Committee/ Fraser B. Wilde, Comm. on EconomicDevelopment; Otto von Amerongen Wollf,Partner, Otto Wollf, Germany; W.T.Wren, Chairman Allied Iron Founders, U.D.; Paul van Zeeland, Financier, formerPrime Minister of Belgium.

The Chairman was H.R.H. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Strange, is itnot, that the Prince should be the "front" for a powerful left-wing secretsociety?

Why were these people present: Who sent them? Who paid their fares? Who sponsoredtheir meeting? What did they discuss? What did they decide? What orders werethey given? Was there any common denominator of interest among them? Yes,they were all promoters of internationalism. Were they instructed in thenext phase of the advance towards One World? The answer, beyond doubt, isYes.

The Sunday Times reported during October 1957 that financiers and businessmenfrom Britain, the United States, Canada and thirteen other Western nationshad begun private talks at Fiuggi, Italy, on the European free trade areaand the Common Market projects. There were sixty delegates, Mr. Maudling,the Paymaster-General at the time and the Minister responsible for Britain'sintended part in the proposed European free trade area, and Viscount Kilmuir,Lord Chancellor, attended. Lord Kilmuir said it was a point of honour thatno immediate disclosure be made of the subjects under discussion. The wholepoint was that members should be able to discuss problems of interest onboth sides of the Atlantic without committing their Governments. All themembers were speaking as private individuals.

There is no difficulty in recognising in this secret gathering the mysteriousBilderberg Group, of which Prince Bernhard is the official sponsor. As theauthor surmised after the St. Simons Island meeting, the purpose was to speedup the cause of internationalism and it is interesting to have confirmedthe fact that these agents of the Money Power were directly concerned withthe European free trade area. Am I right in thinking that the work undertakenby 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 activitiesin the pages of the old Truth may have led to its manipulators seeking newfacades behind which to work. As Lord Kilmuir maintained that all the BilderbergGroup's members spoke as private individuals would he also have known whetherthey paid their own expenses when attending these meetings in different partsof 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 Hotelat Buxton was cleared of guests so as to accommodate these cloak and daggerboys, and not only that - the normal hotel staff was temporarily suspendedduring the invasion so that alien waiters and porters should have the exclusiveduty of looking after the conspirators. It would be interesting to know howthe foreign servants came to be collected for the job and just what internationalsecurity tests they were called upon to pass.

The Mayor of Buxton, whose courteous function it was to welcome conferencesto his town, was rudely ignored, as the Queen seems to have been, by PrinceBernhard of the Netherlands, whose presence on British soil one would havethough necessitated a courtesy call on Her Majesty. Protocol goes by theboard when esoteric international policies are to be discussed.

The security measures taken were prodigious. They made clear that if we hadnot the honour of entertaining the arch-conspirators in person, at leastwe had the doubtful distinction of being visited by their very highest agents.They came not in their official capacities but as private citizens. Thatfact was repeatedly stressed. Yet, according to rumour, there arrived fortheir use crates of official documents so secret that the crates had to belocked - together with a British officer as custodian - in a room at theBuxton police station. When asked about the authenticity of this rumour,the Conference's spokesman tried to laugh it off. However, after persistentenquiries the spokesman said: "Well, if General Schuyler (Chief of Staffof S.H.A.P.E.) brought along certain documents, that is his affair." I amnot saying that General Schulyer did in fact bring along the papers; theabove 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 attendedthat 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 theAnglo-Dutch Trade Council and chairman of an "industrial development"organisation called MIDEC. One hundred and twenty European and six U.S. firmswere in this organisation in 1960 for the purpose of "developing" the MiddleEast. One of the U.S. members of MIDEC was Rockefeller Centre Inc. Both Davidand Nelson Rockefeller have been and may still be members of the Councilon Foreign Relations. James S. Rockefeller is or was the president of theFirst National City Bank of New York. Anybody who likes to get a Directoryof Directors and a few dozen copies of the International Monetary Fund weeklywill find plenty of evidence to indicate that a good deal of so-called "economicpolicy", whether in Washington or Indonesia, Australia or Sweden, emanatesfrom a relatively small circle of interested parties.

The following is a list of the names of conspirators who attended the Buxtonmeeting. I use the word "conspirators" deliberately. Men pursuing purposeswhich will bear the light of day do not hold secret meetings in differentparts of the world. The whole business could be treated as schoolboy sillinesswere it not for the fact that there emerged from such gatherings policieshostile to the traditional order of life. To deprive the public of usingthe Buxton hotel co*cktail bar and other amenities so as not to intrude onthe privacy of the plotters has about it something of the spirit of 1984and would be better accepted by the cowed citizens of Moscow than it wasby 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; SirEdward 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.; LewisCamu, Belgium; Guido Carli, Italy; Clifford P. CAse, U.S.; VictorCavendish-Bentick, U.K.; Sir Ralph Cochrane, U.K.; Erich Dethleffsen, Germany;Fritz Erler, Germany; John Ferguson, U.S.; H.T.N. Gaitskell, U.K.; WalterL. Gordon, Canada; Joseph Grimond, U.K.; Sir Colin Gubbins, U.K.;WaltherHallstein (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; ThorkilKristensen, 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 BilderbergConference attended by seventy delegates from Europe and North America woundup 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 statementsaid. Chairman of the meeting was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, wholeft Quebec yesterday for home after making private visits to cities in Mexico,the U.S. and Canada. The statement said although the conference "followedthe original Bilderberg concept of not attempting to reach conclusions orto recommend policies, there was substantial agreement on the need to promotebetter understanding and more effective co-ordination among the Western nations.Points of particular concern included the role of the North Atlantic TreatyOrganisation in world policy, the strengthening of both the nuclear andnon-nuclear deterrent power of the alliance and the responsibility for controlof atomic weapons inside Nato", the statement said. 'The implications forWestern 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. Forinstance, there might not appear to be much danger in a body that does notattempt to reach conclusions or to recommend policies. However, there areother factors to be taken into account. Quite a lot of money is needed tofly seventy delegates from all over the world to an annual conference. Whofinds that money and why? And who delegates the delegates? The author findsit hard to believe that the expense is incurred merely for the pleasure ofstaging discussion not aimed at any conclusion. Let there be no doubt aboutthis business. When people like Frankfurter, Dean Acheson and Cyrus Eatonforegather 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 policiesdetermined, so that the delegates assemble to be told what the form is. Theydo not need to be given their orders. Once the form is declared they knowwell enough hat is expected of them, while for our part it be affirmed withassurance that the Bilderberg "power-elite" would not discuss the nuclearpower deterrence of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in any sense favourableto countries such as Great Britain retaining nuclear weapons under theirown sovereign control.

Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens stated in The Times about June 1960, when writingan obituary of Joseph Retinger, that he, Retinger, "founded the BilderbergGroup, whose meetings under the chairmanship of Prince Bernhard of theNetherlands brought together the leading political and industrial personalitiesfrom the U.S. and Europe, to discuss ways of removing any source of conflictbetween the U.S. and her allies. The meetings, held with out any kind ofpublicity in England, Holland, Turkey, Switzerland, or the United States,brought together leading statesmen who could discuss their problems in privacyand 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 thanan agent or promoter. Financiers rather than industrialists would be a moreaccurate description of Groups's inspirators. And no ordinary financiers.The men who find the funds are the international policy makers who seek toshape the world to their own particular specification. International financiersdo not take orders for men like Joseph Retinger.

Retinger, I repeat, was an agent. The world is not run by stray idealists,malthough agents, of course, may be actuated by genuine idealism. That doesnot make their projects necessarily wholesome. I affirm that the influencesbehind the European movement which made use of Retinger's idealism are, froma national and Christian point of view, thoroughly unwholesome and indeedevil, in that what they seek is a monopoly of political and financial power.Evil, too, is the method. Nations are represented - at any rate accordingto a polite fiction - by their Governments. Who selects the "leading politicaland industrial personalities" who go cavorting around the globe to attendsecret discussions upon world affairs: Is the Bilderberg Group a flying circusnominated by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and its dominatingpartner in America, the Council on Foreign Relations? Some kind of nexusseems certain. Both Chatham House and the Council fit the description ofwhat has been called the Power Elite - "a group of men similar in interestand outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes."Andwhat is the Bilderberg Group if not precisely that?

We may be certain that the Group was not organised by Joseph Retinger asthe principal. Who would the principal have been? Baruch? Frankfurter? TheKuhn, Loeb gang? And why the cloak and dagger stuff? Is the Bilderberg Groupan apparatus of Grand Orient Masonry? Whatever the answer to that questionthe atmosphere of plotting in the dark which pervades it has a dank and verynasty smell. Sir Edward Beddington-Behrens would perform a service to theWestern Nations if he would describe in more detail the work and backgroundof Retinger, who was a very mysterious person indeed.

There are other points worth noting. It was possible for Dean Acheson, formerU.S. Secretary of State, to slip in and out of Britain for the Buxton Conferencewithout exciting any British newspaper comment. The Bilderberg Group hadaffirmed its desire to strengthen the Nato alliance, which was brought intobeing to contain Communism. Yet when two American juries found Alger Hissguilty of perjury in denying that he was a Communist agent, Dean Achesonpublicly reaffirmed his friendship with the traitor. Another Bilderbergenthusiast was Cyrus Eaton, the American millionaire who allowed his Pugwashhome to be used for Bilderberg sponsored conferences. Yet Cyrus Eaton wasnotorious for his pro-Communist sympathies.

If it were possible to bring members of the Bilderberg Group before a Commissionof Enquiry they would have theses and many other matters to explain. Theywould also these and many other matters to explain. They would also haveto give a more satisfactory answer than any yet offered about the need fora secret society technique so offered about the need for a secret societytechnique so offered about the need for a secret society technique so stringentthat not even the honest British waiters and waitresses at a Buxton hotelcould be allowed within earshot of the conspirators. Until Prince Bernhardand his colleagues explain themselves, which is an improbable event, I proposeto designate them as the chosen lackeys of the New York Money Power chargedwith the task of plotting to bring into being a One World tyranny.

My friend and colleague Austen Brooks drew the attention of readers of Candourto another exceedingly curious extra-governmental body working along lineswhich would suggest its affiliation with the Bilderberg group. Early in 1962a dozen "leading churchmen" ) of whom, needless to say, one was Canon JohnCollins) published an "appeal to the British Government and people" urgingthat Britain should be prepared to renounce her independent nuclear deterrent.Commenting on this, the Observer wrote: "Behind the statement lies a strangeand little-known relationship between Church leaders and some of Britain'sbest-known military pundits. The connection started back in 1955, when RichardGoold-Adams, foreign affairs commentator, Denis Healey, the Labour politician,Professor Blackett and Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Buzzard, former head of NavalIntelligence and an active Churchman, were worried about the lack of seriousthinking about strategy in Britain and, in particular, the undue relianceon the strategic H-bomb."(Note the nuclear surrender hand in the "strategic"glove.) This quartet, according to the Observer, "raised the problem" withthe 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-headedmilitary men, journalists and politicians surrounded by clerical cloth" -was held at the Bedford Hotel in Brighton. A continuation committee was setup 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 letthe cat out. "After a year or so,"it wrote, "the money they had collectedwas beginning to run out. But just at that moment, Denis Healey managed tointerest the Ford Foundation in this enterprise. He asked for only 10,000dollars. They offered ten times as much, and with this the Brighton ConferenceAssociation wound itself up and the Institute for Strategic Studies cameinto existence."

The persuasive Mr. Healey, who "managed to interest" the Ford Foundationin 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 leadingmember of the Fabian Society, a member of the Bilderberg group and, almostcertainly, a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Smallwonder that the policy of the Institute for Strategic Studies, which theAmerican Ford Foundation had brought into being, was soon adopted as theofficial policy of the Labour Party. In October, 1964, the Fabian BilderbergerDenis Healey became Minister of Defence, an appointment which was the signalfor the almost immediate abandonment of a number of British military aircraftprojects. Then, early in April, 1965, came what was for all practical purposesthe renunciation of the British independent nuclear deterrent - the abandonmentof the magnificent British aircraft TSR2. The announcement of this abandonmentwas made, curiously, not by Mr. Healey but by his colleague Mr. James Callaghan,the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech. What Mr. Callaghandid not announce was that only a couple of months earlier the Ford Foundationhad made a further grant to Mr. Healey's Institute for 100,000 dollars lookparsimonious. 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 beforethe television cameras a strategic "expert" to reassure viewers that thedecision was "quite right". The "expert" was Mr. Alistair Buchan, Directorof the Institute for Strategic Studies. Strangely enough, the B.B.C. omittedto tell viewers of the part played by Mr. Healey and the Ford Foundationin providing Mr. Buchan with the job which "qualified" him to pronounce abenediction on the policy of Mr. Healey. If the Socialist Government wishesto economise, why does it not shut down the Ministry of Defence and transferits powers outright to the headquarters of the Ford Foundation? That wouldseem to accord with the facts!

One final fact about the Bilderberg group. At its 1965 meeting it had a newrecruit. 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.

From 'The New Unhappy Lords' by AK Chesterton

These links dead now: search under "X1-B U-boat", "sub sea recovery", "tridentresearch and recovery inc", and ex-US navy diver "Ed Michaud" who lives inFramingham Mass. USA old site copied belowNazi industrialists escape to theUSA in a giant U-Boat before Hitler's fall. Prince Bernhard,Bilderbergsupremo, appearsto be loitering on the coast!http://mallofmaine.com/ca35/

1945 - U.S. elites help Gestapoboss escape trial by faking his death. As the liberating allied forces closedon Berlin, notorious head of the Gestapo Martin Boormann was smuggled outand under the Atlantic bringing essential components for Hiroshima and Nagasakiatom 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.

CHRONOLOGY

I. I N T R O D U C T I O N

"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 ofa legendary German U-Boat off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts in Augustof 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 Navalmarine quadrant location of the U-Boat wreckage initially located in 1993.The term 'CA' refers directly to the German navigational box coordinatedesignated for the area immediately off the eastern shore of Cape Cod,Massachusetts, with the numbers '35' referring to the location within thatdesignated box.

The process of discovery is a very time consuming matter. The reader mustkeep in mind that this brief is preliminary and therefore, incomplete. Asinformation is received and assessed by Trident and Sub Sea it will be dulyposted within updated and revised versions of this briefing.

II. H I S T O R I C A L O V E R V I E W

The availability of recently declassified military, political and intelligencedocuments are slowly assisting the professional researcher in filling inthe gaps of World War Two history. Instead of seeing what appears to be aconvoluted series of events we are now starting to understand just how thegeopolitical strategies of the various governments involved in the conflictactually dictated the outcome of the battlefield scenario.

With this in mind, we will relate here a general status of World War Twoas it stood during the summer and fall of 1944, and then lay in the minutedetails that actually affected the important events unfolding during thistime frame.

During the summer of 1944 the United States and her Allies, namely GreatBritain and the Soviet Union, had commenced the final push to victory overGermany's Third Reich in Europe. The now famous "D-Day" landings on the FrenchNormandy coast were successfully accomplished on 6 June and the German battlelines gradually gave way under the Allied onslaught. The German High Commandknew well that it was the beginning of a long retreat and would ultimatelyend in a total defeat.

In fact, a little over a year earlier in the month of February, 1943 theGerman military and civilian populace witnessed the disastrous events unfoldingon the Russian Front. With the loss of the city of Stalingrad to the Sovietforces those individuals inside Germany with any insight at all could seevery well what the inevitable outcome would be. As a result of these Germanmilitary losses the several Nazi-Opposition groups, already in place withinGermany since 1939, now began to increase their activity. These particularindividuals and organizations firmly believed that Hitler's plans of dominationwere a direct threat to their country's best interests. The groups incorporatedmany of the German social and political elite who had actually assisted Hitler'sFascist machine in the first place, most notably Germany's "Technocrats"of political leaders, industrialists, bankers and highly placed militaryofficers. By February of 1943 these opportunists became increasinglydisillusioned with the Hitlerite agendas and commenced making their ownarrangements for their post-war futures, both as individuals and as corporateentities.

Highly placed military leaders such as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, Chief ofGermany's leading intelligence agency the 'Abwehr', and Field Marshals' Waltervon Kluge and Erwin Rommel, as well as several high-ranking staff officerswithin the Kriegsmarine and Wehrmacht, actively conspired in the failed attemptto assassinate Adolph Hitler on the 20th. of July, 1944.

While the German military was attempting to eliminate the problem at itssource, (Adolph Hitler), the conservative civilian opposition groups wereattempting to alter the inevitable outcome of the war by initiating contactswith the "Western Allies", Great Britain and the United States. These variouscontacts were an effort to end the war for Germany under favorable termsfor an armistice. The Nazi Opposition groups were literally fighting theclock, as every day that passed without an end to the war meant the furtherloss of German life and the wholesale destruction of property and post-warindustrial capability. In fact, these specific concerns of a post-war Germanindustrial survival were the prime motives of the Nazi- Opposition.

The Western Intelligence agencies and military commands were well aware ofjust what was going on inside Germany at this time and actually conductednumerous secret meetings with the German military and civilian leaders inan effort to end the war. However, the Western Allies possessed a vastlydifferent agenda. Upon review of the available declassified political documentsit appears that the American parties negotiating certain details with theGerman representatives had several separate agendas - all of which seem gearedmore at personal gain rather than the American public's best interest.

The President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had publiclystated as early as 1943 that no terms except "Unconditional Surrender" wouldbe accepted from Germany by the three Allied powers; the United States, GreatBritain and the Soviet Union. Roosevelt was to maintain this stand throughoutthe war. However, many of the hard-line political capitalists within theUnited States Department of State, the Office of Strategic Services and themilitary intelligence services had a vastly different idea of just how toend the war - all of which were to run contrary to the Presidentialadministration's policy decisions.

Operationally, the German U-Boat force still managed to keep its U-Boat fleetsomewhat active during the summer and fall of 1944. The official recordsindicate that most of the available U-Boats were operationally concentratedwithin the North Sea and around the British Isles in its continuing attemptto strangle the Allied supply lines. Occasionally an independent U-Boat patrolwould be deployed into the North Atlantic to sink ships, report on weatheror both. There were two "Special Missions" deployed against the Americancoast in 1944, only one of which was to succeed off the Maine coast nearthe end of the year. In that particular case, the U-1230 successfully landedtwo agents at Winter Harbor. The success was minimal however, since bothmen were eventually picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

During the first week of July, 1944 an incident involving a U-Boat and theU.S. Naval Airship "K-14" occurred off Bar Harbor, Maine. As is made so painfullyclear in the official Inquiry records, the U-Boat in question brought downthe "K-14" with 20mm Anti-Aircraft fire resulting in the loss of six Airshipcrewmen out of a total compliment of ten men. The Inquiry and relatedintelligence reports also show that the "K-14" was somewhat successful inat least severely damaging the enemy vessel. Unfortunately, this incidentwas also kept secret for over 54 years.

Another situation occurred on 20 August of this year. The U-1229 was interceptedon 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 coaston a 'spy-insertion' operation. The U-1229 went down with about one-thirdof her crew, but 41 survivors of this sinking wererescued as prisoners ofwar by the American destroyers on the scene.

What was not known by most military men at this time, however, was the factthat the Type XI U-Boat was also proceeding to the American coast - at thattime located only 20 nautical miles distant from the U-1229 at the time ofthe latter's demise.

III. T H E "B L A C K K N I G H T"

According to the official design drafts laid out for the German Type XI-BU-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. dieselengines in two separate engine rooms), plus two high-grade electric motorsin 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.

Above-Deck

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 complimentof two company's' of "Special Coastal Troops", ('Brandenburgers')

Cargo Capacity: . . . . 600 cubic tons above provisions.

Accessories: . . . . . 1 One-Man "Arado/Argus 231" reconnaissance seaplanestowed in forward vertical storage tube.

As detailed within the Kriegsmarine "K" Design Office, there were to be atotal of four of these monstrous vessels laid down, with the possibilityof constructing an additional four vessels should time and resources permit.However, it is known that only four keels were laid and that one was actuallylaunched, the others eventually being scrapped prior to the end of the warbefore completion. The U-Boat Command intentions were to assign the numbersU-112 through U-115 to the first four vessels of the class. However, Kriegsmarinecommissioning records reflect no such assignment of numbers and for all practicalpurposes the Type XI was never officially commissioned.

Very little is known about the Type XI-B U-Boat. All official histories statethat the vessel type was never built and numerous publications indicate thatthe 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 launchedfrom the Deschimag yards. Contained within the records of the Military archiveat Freiburgim-Breisgau, Germany is a brief mention of the "actual" yard trialsin the Weser River of the Type XI U- Cruiser having attained a surface speedof 26 knots. This is supported to some degree by Eberhard Roessler's impressivepublication "The U-Boat", in which this trial record is partly quoted. Thedetails contained in the records of the Military archive in Germany makeit very clear that the above speed trials were not obtained from 'tank' testsof models. Therefore, there certainly is some proof of the actual existenceof a working and operational model of the legendary Type XI.

Amplified reports obtained from interviewed veterans of both the Allied andAxis intelligence services indicate very strongly that at some point duringits existence, most probably in early 1944, the Type XI was berthed at thesupposedly neutral ports of Vigo, Spain and Lisbon, Portugal on the IberianPeninsula. These same sources have stated that the unofficial reference tothe Type XI was "Die Schwarz Ritter", ("The Black Knight"). There is no officialdocumentation of this but, considering the sources we must at least considerthe high probability of these facts. It is certainly already well establishedthat most of the clandestine activity directed by the Germans toward theAmericas originated from the Iberian Peninsula, primarily through a GermanIndustrial-Intelligence organization referred to as "Sofindus".

Of primary importance in connection with this area of course are the Germanseries of Special Operations known as "JOLLE", (translated as "Happy Boat")and "AKTION FEUERLAND", (meaning "Action Land-of-Fire", referring to thesouthern geographical area of Argentina). These two operations were intendedto pave the way for German post-war survival. Noted Nazi leaders and warcriminals were in the process of laying the financial foundation for a "FourthReich" within the borders of such countries as Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and,most importantly for reasons of easy access, Argentina.

IV. C O N T R O L L E D P A N I C

As previously outlined within the 'Overview', the German Opposition groupswere becoming increasingly bolder in their attempts at contacting the WesternAllies through the various intelligence agencies. Those Opposition Groupmembers associated with German Industrial concerns were the boldest, andpossessed all the right connections to persuenegotiations for an acceptablearmistice. The sole motive for the German Industrialists was obvious. Theywished to maintain their corporate identity AND their financial assets forthe post-war period. There were also many American Industrial concerns whowished to see this as well since a large percentage of ownership in theseGerman companies were held by large American corporations - a blatant violationof the 'Trading With The Enemy Act'.

The accessed research documents show that by June of 1944 there were no lessthan eight separate meetings between German Industrialists and agents ofthe Office of Strategic Services. The most active American in these effortswas Allen W. Dulles, the OSS Chief of Station head quartered in the neutralcity of Berne, Switzerland.

The professional background of Allen Dulles and his brother, John FosterDulles, are most interesting. It seems that both men were heavily involvedin pre-war dealings between American and German Corporations through theirlaw firm of 'Sullivan & Cromwell' in New York City. It was these samepre-war German connections with which Allen Dulles wasnegotiating throughoutthe winter of 1943 and the summer/fall of 1944. All official documentationpoints to the fact that the Dulles brothers were not operating in the bestinterests of United States foreign policy, but were actually motivated throughpersonal reasons to help in creating an acceptable form of armistice whichwould benefit most the German Industrialists directly. This also involvedthe safe guarding of certain German securities, which both John Foster andAllen Dulles actively assisted with - regardless of its direct violationof accepted U.S. Treasury and Presidential administration policy. In shortthe Dulles brothers, along with a handful of U.S. diplomats and intelligenceoperatives, helped Nazis and Anti-Nazis alike to hide negotiable securitiesfrom Allied confiscators and at the same time assisted in negotiating anend 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, Germanywas desperately trying to protect what she had left of her industrial andmonetary systems. Every day that passed without a negotiated armistice meantthe further loss of property and post-war capability. It is well documentedthat major German corporations began making plans for the safeguarding ofits resources in supposedly "neutral" countries while continuing to pursuediplomatic agendas.

Of particular note are the individual operations of German corporations.Firms such as I.G.Farben and Krupp Industries were known to have liquidatedtheir stock holdings into either gold coin or bars by June of 1944 inanticipation of secreting these hard assets into the neutral countries ofSwitzerland, Lichenstein, Portugal and, most importantly - Argentina. Indeed,the Krupp concerns alone possessed vast estate holdings in Argentina andpost-war records confirm that many millions worth of negotiable securitiesdid make it to these estates via U-Boat transport for eventual deposit inthe German controlled banks of Banco Aleman Transatlantico and Banco Tornquist.

What helped to speed up both the safe guarding of Germancorporate assetsand attempts at armistice negotiations were thedecisions of the Breton WoodsInternational Monetary Conference held at Breton Woods, New Hampshire between1 - 20 July, 1944. Most of the Allied Nations represented at this conferencevoted for the dissolution of the Bank for International Settlements inSwitzerland, a major money-launderer for the Nazis. With the loss of thisparticular bank the German corporations would find it much more difficultto move their ill-gotten profits out of Germany. On 9 July the Breton WoodsConference passed what is referred to as 'Resolution No. 6', which calledfor the dissolution of the Bank for International Settlements and the monitoringof the German movement of corporate wealth into neutral countries. Combinedwith a desperate need to negotiate an armistice this created a "ControlledPanic" situation within the German Industrial community.

When one studies the known movements of wealth and the options then opento both the German Anti-Nazi diplomats and Industrialists, it becomes obviousthat drastic measures are indeed being planned. In September of 1944 a muchdelayed Finnish Intelligence report surfaced referring to a "Hitler EscapeBoat" 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 oneconclusion: the alleged "Hitler Escape Boat" is none other than the TypeXI-B U-Cruiser... the same vessel which was never officially commissionedinto the Kriegsmarine. The very same vessel which is not supposed to evenexist!

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 assassinationattempt on Adolph Hitler by the Nazi-Opposition. Records also indicate verystrongly that the German Industrialists were behind the deployment of theType XI-B U-Boat. One can only assume that the excuse for this vessel's existencein acting as a "Hitler Escape Boat" was only an accepted cover story forthe benefit of the Nazi-Opposition, as quite obviously Hitler himself wasnot embarked on board the vessel at the time of its departure.

A "Controlled Panic" caused the Industrial Opposition to deploy this vesselas quickly as possible for a two-fold mission: to negotiate an acceptablearmistice directly with U.S. representatives and to export to Argentina atleast a portion of the German corporate securities. Thirty-Seven days laterthe Type XI-B U-Cruiser arrived off the Massachusetts coast - committed toher clandestine mission.

V. C O D E N A M E: "O B S C U R E C I N C H"

The date of 25 August, 1944 appeared to begin as any normal day along theEastern Sea Frontier. But, the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence had beencontinuously briefed over the past few days by the British Admiralty "ULTRA"of an "Unknown" U-Boat heading their way. On 15 August Admiralty informedU.S. Navy "COMINCH", (meaning Commander-In-Chief), that a U-Boat they haddesignated as "LT" was heading across the Atlantic and that they suspectedit was on a "SPECIAL MISSION" since it was observing radio silence and notreporting its daily position, as was the normal routine among U-Boat Commandersof the time.

On the 17th. of August British Admiralty appears to be reasonably sure thatthe mystery vessel was bound to the American coast, but inquire further fromU.S. "COMINCH" for any additional information that may help in their assessments.Simultaneously to this tracking the U.S. Navy was following the movementsof the U-1229, designated as the "RJ", (Red Jig), which appeared to be runninga parallel course to the mystery U-Boat.

By the 18th. British Admiralty admitted to U.S. "COMINCH" that the headingof "LT", (Love Tare), "REMAINS OPEN", suggesting that all are totally confusedas to the subject vessel's actual destination and purpose.

Then on 20 August the U-1229 was successfully sunk by U.S. Naval forces justeast of the Grand Banks, as stated within the "ULTRA" radio- intercepttransmission, 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 theBritish 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 operationalintelligence material is becomes obvious that the "ULTRA" staff are completelyunaware of the actual mission of the Type XI-B U-Cruiser, whereas certainother intelligence operatives are totally aware of the facts. This is a typicalexample of "need to know" restrictions between intelligence departments.

By the early evening of the 25th. it becomes obvious that the Type XI wassuccessful 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 RoundShoal Channel seven miles east of Great Point, Nantucket. Due to a submarinesighting 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 investigatethe reported sighting. Local vessels of the Northern Ship Lane Patrol arealso ordered to the scene, which included two Coast Guard 83-footers andtwo 110 foot Sub-Chasers.

At this same time O.N.I. Telegrapher Preston Howley was monitoring the U-Boat'swireless transmission from the Office of Naval Intelligence Radio InterceptStation located at Chatham, Cape Cod, only fourteen miles to the northwestof the U-Boat's position. According to Howley, the transmission was originatingfrom 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 thisparticular German U-Boat was sending diplomatic messages in a "High Priority"status. Given what we now know about this vessel's mission parameters, thisdiplomatic message tends to run parallel with the established facts. Howleydescribed the message as being sent in three parts lasting just a few minuteseach and separated by approximately two or three minutes. The total messagelasted perhaps twenty minutes, enough to fill three legal-size teletype pagesof coding data.

O.N.I. Telegrapher Howley duly re-transmitted this message over his teletypeto the U.S. Naval Cryptographic Center in Washington, D.C. Within half anhour the message bounced back to his station from Washington with the statementthat they wished him to verify the coding and destination address, whichhe did. Howley verified the coding and address which, looking back on itfifty-four years later, he firmly believes was destined for the White HouseMap Room. The White House Map Room was not just the President's War Roomduring World War Two. It was also an intelligence center for combined services- managed by the Department of State itself. The implications of Howley'sexperiences and later assessments are obvious.

The following operations, which lasted over two days, are code named "OBSCURECINCH" and "LADY BULL". According to the 'Official' record these "SpecialSearches" resulted in no activity and no confirmation of any subsequent actionat the scene. The fact that these operations occurred at exactly the samelocation as the present location of the wreckage of the Type XI-B discoveredin 1993, however, is extremely indicative. Veteran interviews have revealedthat the subject U-Boat was actually sunk by the Naval Airship "K-25", withthe small surface vessels conducting a 48 hour surface search for survivorsand debris. The official records certainly tend to support the follow-upsearch for debris, often termed as a "Yankee Search".

Unfortunately, only a further declassification of existing"Operational" documentswould provide additional insight into exactlywhat happened and how it happened.

VI. I N S E A R C H O F A G H O S T

The first hint of the existence of a U-Boat wreck off Cape Cod occurred in1988, when now Trident President Edward Michaud heard for the first timethe accepted stories of its demise off the Cape from a local tug-boat skippernamed Warren LeGyte. Michaud had been running a sixty-one foot crew-boatout of Boston for the then ongoing MWRA OutfallProject. Every night Michaudand his fellow crewmen would bunk in Warrens 100 foot tug "Georgina A", thentied 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. Indue time the MWRA contracts would end and Michaud would eventually locatethe various veterans who were involved in the original 1944 incident.

By June of 1993 Michaud had joined up with several dedicated professionalsin 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 wereobtained. Equipment and financing, however, were slow in coming and it was9 December of 1993 before any detailed sonar images of the wreck could beobtained.

Upon the initial discovery in June it was assumed by all involved in theproject that the U-Boat located off Cape Cod was a standard German Type IX-C/40submarine on a routine war patrol at the time of its loss. However, whenthe detailed sonar images were obtained in December it was immediately apparentthat what had been found was indeed much larger in both length and bulk.After weeks of study and comparisons with knownGerman building plans it becameobvious that what had been found was actually a submarine that, accordingto all known histories, was not supposed to exist! Michaud and his team hadfound 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 armoredgun-mounts were obtained utilizing E.G.&G sonar equipment. This leftlittle doubt as to the vessel's structural confirmation. The following monthof December brought with it a dive to the confirmed wreck site by Michaudand fellow diver Mike Turner. Although underwatervisibility was at an alltime low of one foot, a total of fifteen small artifacts were recovered fromaround the wreck's pressure-hull. It was noticed that the wreck overall washeavily encased in huge drifts of sand ledges, as is to be expected in thearea. As an example, just several miles to the west the 325 foot long wreckageof the steam-freighter "Dixie Sword" is almost completely covered in thesame 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, exclusiverights of salvage for the German Type XI-B U-Boat in the First Federal DistrictCourt 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 wreckageand how this information correlated with the known research facts.

An Archaeologist was added to the survey team to insure proper methodologyin the project. Additional Archivists and Researchers were consulted andthe process of discovery continued both in the Archival repositories andon the site of the wreck itself.

TODAY

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'sexperience, expertise and high technology ability to bear on the Project.Trident and Sub-Sea had been working jointly on other interesting researchprojects in the recent past, so it seemed only natural to combine the resourcesof both companies on the "Operation CA-35" Project.

The new Joint Venture will concentrate on obtaining video-tape footage ofthe Type XI-B wreck site and is presently planning on follow-up recoveryoperations. All vessel artifacts so recovered are slated for preservationand ultimate public display at the U.S.S. Salem Museum located in Quincy,Massachusetts. Needless to say, this should make for a rather impressiveand informative stage for further public dissemination.

It should be noted that Trident has attempted on many occasions to open adialogue with the respective offices of the U.S. Department of State, theFederal Republic of Germany and the U.S. Department of the Navy. All suchrequests for open discussion have gone ignored. It is hoped that in the nearfuture this situation can be resolved. However, given the political revelationsas described above, its really not very surprising that Government officesrefuse to discuss this Project and its related investigations.

Several Senators and Congressmen have been notified by Trident in an attemptto both open such dialogues and assist in further investigations into theoriginal 1944 incident. We at Trident and Sub-Sea believe that there willprobably 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 anddeployment of the German Type XI-B there is no doubt that they too wouldhave put the pieces together! Apparently, the missing link was the Type XI.

VIII. R E C E N T R E S E A R C H

There has been some very interesting revelations in the Project's follow-upof research data. Due to the efforts of contributing researcher Mr. EricBrothers U.S. State Department Protocol documents are now available to confirmone of this investigation's long-standing curiosities - the visit of membersof the Dutch Royal Family to Chatham,

Cape Cod during the very same time-frame in which the German Type XI-B U-Boatwas known to have been operational off Cape Cod.

These documents consist of a series of notifications between the representativesof the Dutch Royal Family in exile and the Protocol Section of the Departmentof State. On the surface they do indeed appear to be routine in nature. Itis only when viewed with the other known occurrences off Cape Cod at thistime that these Protocol records seem to indicate more than just routineprocedure.

For example: One of the most obvious details that stand out is the suddendeparture from Chatham of Princess Juliana and her royal attendants on themorning of the 26th. of August, 1944, only hours after the known destructionof the Type XI fourteen miles to the southeast. This, combined with a publishednews report in the local Cape Cod Times for that date, quote the Princessas opening a short public statement upon her departure, stating: "I willnot talk about anything political and cannot take questions". She goes onto 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 Familydeparts by car for Boston enroute to Canada. The fact that these State DepartmentProtocol documents were only declassified at the time Mr. Brothers requestedto view them in July of 1997 is possibly indicative - fifty four years afterthe fact.

To add to this new information Trident had conducted background researchinto the Dutch Royal Family due to its suspicions and has confirmed thefollowing:

1) The Royal Consort, Prince Bernhardt, Husband of Juliana since 1937, wasprevious to their marriage an active card-carrying member of Hitler'sblack-shirted SS.

2) Prince Consort Bernhardt was employed prior to, during, and after thewar 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 intelligencecommunities. The mere fact of his employment as an "industrial spy" for Farbenplaces 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 includedin this specific brief due to space considerations. However, the basic factsas listed above give very strong indications regarding the Dutch Royal visitto Cape Cod at this specific time in July and August of 1944. Suffice itto 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 sortof liaison or facilitator in connections for Armistice Negotiations betweenGerman Industrialists and certain members of the American Department of Stateand Intelligence Community. The final proof for this is as yet not confirmed,but the stage is certainly set for such endeavors. Perhaps the amplifieddocumentation for such a situation is contained within the hull of the TypeXI off Cape Cod.

SELECTED SOURCE CITATIONS

Listed below are only a few of the Archival Documents accessed by Tridentresearchers and contributing researchers for this project. To cite each andevery document in our possession relative to the subject matter is a taskthat goes well beyond this brief at this time. However, for those readerswho wish to know more about the geopolitical and financial atmosphere relativeto the time frames layed out in this brief we highly recommend the recentbook publications referenced below in section "C", all of which should beavailable in most public libraries.

A. National Archives and Records Administration, (NARA), Northeast Regional Repository, Waltham, Massachusetts:

Record Group 181, Records of the Naval Districts and Shore Establishmentsas 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 perD.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 1May, 1981 per D.O.D. Directive ZMCM-8200.10/373/523.

3) Miscellaneous Papers of the Commander and Sub- Commander, Eastern SeaFrontier - Northern Group, Records of the District Intelligence Officer,1st. Naval District, Boston, Massachusetts.

B. National Archives and Records Administration, (NARA), College Park, Maryland:

Record Group 59: General Records of the Department of State, Decimal File1940-1944, 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 UndergroundIn Germany", Entry 106, Box 12, Folder 88. (10 Apr., 1942)

2) "Letter From Allen W. Dulles To William J. Donovan: Suggestions ForPsychological Warfare", Entry 106, Box 9, Folder 70. (8 May, 1942)

3) "Telegram From Allen W. Dulles to OSS Washington: German Efforts To EstablishContact with Americans, Entry 134, Box 307. (13 Jan., 1943).

4) "Memorandum by the OSS Morale Operations Branch in London: SuggestionsFor a German Underground Plan", Entry 139, Box 175, Folder 2316. (31Aug.,1943).

5) "Telegram From Allen W. Dulles to OSS Director William J. Donovan: Nucleiof the German Opposition", Entry 134, Box 340, Folder 1819. (21 Sept., 1943).

6) "Report by OSS Agent Theodore A. Morde: Conversations with German AmbassadorFranz von Papen in Turkey", (known as the 'Morde-Papen Plan'), Entry 139,Box 175, Folder 2316; also in Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, listed underRoosevelt 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 AssistAllied Military Operations Against Nazi Germany", Entry 180, A-3304, MicrofilmRoll 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 HelmuthJames Graf von Moltke's Peace Initiative", Entry 190, Microfilm Collection1462, 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 AlliedEmissaries". Entry 92, Box 592, Folder 3. (4 Apr.,1944)

11) "Memorandum from OSS Assistant Director G. Edward Buxton to Secretaryof State Cordell Hull: Overtures by German Generals and Civilian Oppositionfor 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.

C. Publications, (Books):

Doenitz, Admiral Karl: "Ten Years and Twenty Days", pub. by The World PublishingCompany, 1959, (first published in Germany under the title "Zehn Jahre undZwanzig Tage" in 1958).

De Launay, Jacques: "Secret Diplomacy of World War II, Secret Dossiers ofHistory", translated by Eduard Nadier, published by Simmons-Boardman PublishingCorp., 1963.

Farago, Ladislas: "Aftermath, Martin Bormann and the Fourth Reich", publishedby Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1974. ISBN 671-21676-7.

"The Game of the Foxes, The Untold Story of German Espionage in the UnitedStates and Great Britain during World War II", published by the David McKayCompany, 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 Harperand Row Publishers, Inc., 1981. ISBN 0-06-038002-0.

Grose, Peter: "Gentleman Spy, The Life of Allen Dulles", published by theHoughton-Mifflin Company, 1994. ISBN 0-395-51607-2.

Heideking, Jurgen and Mauch, Christof and Frey, Marc: "American Intelligenceand 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 WesternEspionage 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 GenocideIn The Twentieth Century", published by Common Courage Press, 1995. ISBN1-56751-062-0.

"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.

D. Publications, (Newspapers):

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"

ABOUT THIS BRIEF

Many individuals have contributed to the accumulated research data containedwithin this preliminary brief. Unfortunately, there are a handful of WorldWar 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 andwe can asure them that their openess with us was not in vain.

Just as important are the many other individuals, civilians and veteransalike, who assisted greatly in piecing together this most complex history.Without all of them pulling together in coordinating the endless pieces ofthe puzzle the acquired data would just be a confusing mass of details withno 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

COMPANIES and ORGANIZATIONS

The Naval Airship Association

Sarasota, Florida

Magellan Systems Corporation

San Dimas, California

EG&G Marine Instruments, Inc.

Burlington, Massachusetts

Andy Lynn Boats, Inc.

Plymouth, Massachusetts

American Underwater Search & The U-Boot Archiv, Cuxhaven

Survey, Ltd. Germany

Cataumet, Massachusetts

The U.S.S. Salem Museum

Quincy, Massachusetts

Scan Technologies

Portland, Maine

HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY

DATE: EVENT:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan., 1936: The Kriegsmarine 'K' Design Office proposes the Type XI U-Cruiserspecifications.

Oct., 1948: Orders for the Type XI construction are awarded to the Germanshipbuilding yards of Deschimag - A.G. Weser in Bremen.

8 Sep., 1939: Admiral Doenitz calls for the building and completion of theType XI "Long Distance" U-Boat.

Aug., 1939: Anti-Nazi conspirator Carl Goerdeler travels to the United Statesand meets with U.S. Foreign Affairs officers of the Dept. of State in anattempt to avoid war with the Western Allies. (met with Cordell Hull, HenryWallace, 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 representativeof German Industry. It is documented that Goerdeler transmitted to U.S. personnela "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 awareof 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 Bremenare "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 withAmerican businessman Federico Stallforth, (a New York Banker), to maintainthe peace between the U.S. and Germany. Donovan, Wilkie and Wood are mentionedas 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 theJapanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December.

Nov., 1942: The disastrous German defeats around Stalingrad indicates toall Allies and Germany the inevitable defeat of the Nazis.

Nov., 1942: Allen Dulles of the American Office of Strategic ServicesIntelligence is sent to Switzerland for the express purpose of setting upO.S.S. contacts with the Nazi Opposition.

Apr., 1943: Germany begins the evacuation of North Africa to the Italianmainland.

Sep., 1943: Allied forces invade Sicily and the "Boot" of Italy.

Oct., 1943: German Foreign Officer Trott-zu-Solz meets O.S.S. Chief AllenDulles in Switzerland to discuss details of a proposed armistice betweenGermany and the Western Allies.

Nov., 1943: The plans for the safeguarding of German Industrial and Statesecurities, (known as "Aktion Feuerland"), is approved by Martin Bormann.Plans include the use of submarines to transport to Argentina the Nazi securitiesand 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, managesto deliver to the O.S.S. two coding machines for the specific purpose ofopening communications between American and Anti-Nazi negotiators. This isprobably brought to New York by Donovan and the items are soon transferredto the State Department. "There was to be a discussion with President Rooseveltthe 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 theGerman intelligence agency known as the 'Abwehr' and placed under house arrestfor one month. (Canaris is documented as having been an active conspiratoragainst Hitler and the Nazis).

Mar.-Jun., 1944: "Germany's situation was so desperate, however, that everyeffort, however hopeless, had to be made to persuade the Allies to make somepositive gesture. In many of his reports from Berne, Switzerland Dulles urgedthat something be done along these lines, (of negotiation)".

Apr., 1944: Trott-zu-Solz again meets with Allen Dulles in Switzerland todiscuss procedures for armistice negotiations.

16 May, 1944: The German Opposition offers to the O.S.S. to help Allied militaryunits get into Europe if the Allies agree to let Germany hold the EasternFront against the Soviets. (this plan includes the landing of Allied airbornetroops into Berlin and Bremen, as well as withdrawing from France to allowthe Allies an uncontested landing).

6 June, 1944: The Allied invasion of Europe begins with the landings alongthe Normandy coast of France, known as "D-Day".

19 June, 1944: The German Krupp Industries completes the liquidation of itsholdings of bonds, stocks, etc. into gold, precious stones and currency tothe tune of 68 million US dollars and makes plans to ship said securitiesto the former free-state of Danzig on the Polish coast. (shipment disappearsshortly there-after).

2 July, 1944: The U.S. Naval Airship "K-14" is shot-down by a German U-Boatoff the coast of Bar Harbor, Maine.

5 July, 1944: The German mine laying submarine U-233 is reportedly sunk southeastof Nova Scotia.

7 July, 1944: Mr. van Tets, Dutch Royal Secretary to Princess Julianna ofthe Netherlands, crosses the Canadian border by car enroute from Ottowa toBoston.

9 July, 1944: The Nazi Opposition plans to begin the liquidation of the warby withdrawing on the western front and forcing the Eastern Front againstthe Soviets. Dulles reports these details from Switzerland on 12, 13, and18 July.

14 July, 1944: Capt. Susink, Dutch Security for Princess Julianna of theNetherlands, departs Ottawa bound to Boston.

17 July, 1944: Dutch Princess Julianna and party depart from Canada enrouteto Cape Cod via Boston.

19 July, 1944: Princess Julianna arrives at Chatham, Cape Cod.

20 July, 1944: "Operation Valkyrie" - the failed coup attempt against Hitlercommences. The operation fails by 21 July.

20 July, 1944: A German Naval Mutiny occurs in the afternoon within the Balticsea ports of Danzig, Memel, Gotenhafen and Stettin as a result of the coupattempt against Hitler.

20 July, 1944: The Type XI departs the Danzig/Gdynia area of the Baltic Seaenroute to the American coast.

1 Aug., 1944: "ULTRA" intelligence reports that one U-Boat is sighted leavingthe Baltic and two U-Boats are in the North Atlantic bound West.

7 Aug., 1944: German Economic Agent Carl Heinz Weber meets with Allied contactsin Lisbon, Portugal to work out Nazi-Opposition concessions relative to Armisticenegotiations. German contacts are willing to "Meet any or all Industrialor Territorial demands".

10 Aug., 1944: Leading Nazi Industrialists meet in Strasbourg to determinefuture procedure on the continuing safe-guarding of Industrial and Stateassets.

25 Aug., 1944: O.N.I. Radio Intercept Telegrapher intercepts and re-transmitsa diplomatic "B-Bar" U-Boat transmission from an "S-5" location off CapeCod.

25 Aug., 1944: The Naval Airship "K-25" encounters the Type XI on the surfaceduring patrol, 14 miles southeast of Chatham, Cape Cod. The vessel is sunkin one attack-run on Orion Shoal.

25 Aug., 1944: The Washington O.N.I. Attack Log shows an unknown German U-Boattransmission sent during the early evening, stating that she is "Being attackedby aircraft". Eastern Sea Frontier Northern Group Command designates a U-Boatsearch within the area of Orion Shoal off Cape Cod, MA.

26 Aug., 1944: Princess Julianna departs prematurely from Cape Cod and returnsto Canada, only hours after the sinking of the Type XI off Chatham.

TIME -LAPSE CHART - CHRONOLOGY OF 25 AUGUST 1944

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

Date Event

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

Section II People

Specialist 2nd Class Preston Howley

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

Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz Born - September 16, 1891, Grunau, Germany

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 AumŸhle, Germany

Section III Documentation of Missions & Research

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"

**************************************************************************

THE "ENIGMA" MACHINE

Top Secret German Diplomatic & Naval Code Throughout WW II

¥ August 16, 1939 French Military Intelligence hands over to BritishMI6 a replica of the Enigma machine hand made by Polish Intelligence

¥ September 4, 1939 Alan Turing joins Bletchley Park

¥ B-Code/Enigma declassifed 1973

Events linked to Enigma

¥ March 1941 German Naval Chart Overlay and Enigma key tables for Februarycaptured from trawler Krebs

¥ May 7, 1941 Weathership MŸnchen captured with weather ciphersand June Enigma key tables

¥ May 9, 1941 HMS Bulldog captures U110 with Enigma cipher machine andcipher 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 diplomaticwireless correspondence for the remainder of the war

¥ 1973 The Enigma breakthroughs of WW II Declassified

GERMAN U-BOAT "SPECIAL MISSIONS" - 1944 PUBLIC RECORD

¥ 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.

TRIDENT RESEARCH & RECOVERY CHRONOLOGY

¥ Summer 1941 Chief Petty Officer Robert Marr, U. S. Coast Guard, Showssubmarine wreck to Petty Officer Ronald Baker

¥ September 1988 Ed Michaud told of Submarine wreck by tug Captain WarrenLeGyte

¥ June 5, 1993 Paul Machias on behalf of Ed Michaud conducts side scansonar 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 submarinewreck on Orion Shoal believes to be German XIB.

¥ December 9, 1995 Second side scan sonar image obtained with superiortechnology (E.G.&G.). LOA, Beam determined

Wll, as they say in the states, that's all folks - what a pity this hasdissappeared off the net!

Extracted from The Anglo-American Establishment, from Rhodes to Cliveden, (1966)

The Cecil family's extraordinary secret society, Greek pagan roots of Milner's project to privatise the British empire & foreign policy.

by Carroll Quigley.

THE SECOND important propaganda effort of the Milner Group in the periodafter 1909 was The Round Table. This was part of an effort by the circleof the Milner Group to accomplish for the whole Empire what they had justdone for South Africa. The leaders were Philip Kerr in London, as secretaryof the London group, and Lionel Curtis throughout the world, as organizingsecretary for the whole movement, but most of the members of the Kindergartencooperated in the project. The plan of procedure was the same as that whichhad worked so successfully in South Africa - that is, to form local groupsof influential men to agitate for imperial federation and to keep in touchwith 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 samename was applied to the local groups.

Of these local groups, the most important by far was the one in London. Inthis, Kerr and Brand were the chief figures. The other local groups, alsocalled 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 fashionand somewhat later, in India.

The reasons for doing this were described by Curtis himself in 1917 in ALetter to the People of India, as follows: "We feared that South Africa mightabstain from a future war with Germany, on the grounds that they had notparticipated in the decision to make war. . . . Confronted by this dilemmaat every moment of attaining Dominion self-government, we thought it wouldbe wise to ask people in the oldest and most experienced of all Dominionswhat they thought of the matter. So in 1909, Mr. Kerr and I went to Canadaand persuaded Mr. Marris, who was then on leave, to accompany us. [1]

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 CanadianRockies, Marris convinced Curtis that "self government, . . . however fardistant, was the only intelligible goal of British policy in India. . . .The existence of political unrest in India, far from being a reason forpessimism, was the surest sign that the British, with all their manifestfailings, had not shirked their primary duty of extending Western educationto India and so preparing Indians to govern themselves." "I have since lookedback 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 wasand would always remain peculiar to the peoples of Europe. . . . It was fromthat moment that I first began to think of 'the Government of each by eachand of all by all' not merely as a principle of Western life, but ratherof all human life, as the goal to which all human societies must tend. Itwas from that moment that I began to think of the British Commonwealth asthe greatest instrument ever devised for enabling that principle to be realized,not merely for the children of Europe, but for all races and kindreds andpeoples and tongues. And it is for that reason that I have ceased to speakof the British Empire and called the book in which I published my views TheCommonwealth of Nations."

Because of Curtis's position and future influence, this walk in Canada wasimportant not only in his personal life but also in the future history ofthe British Empire. It needs only to be pointed out that India received completeself-government in 1947 and the British Commonwealth changed its name officiallyto Commonwealth of Nations in 1948. There can be no doubt that both of theseevents resulted in no small degree from the influence of Lionel Curtis andthe Milner Group, in which he was a major figure.

Curtis and his friends stayed in Canada for four months. Then Curtis returnedto 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 questionof imperial relations, and, on the day that the Union of South Africa cameinto existence, he sailed to New Zealand to set up study groups to examinethe question. These groups became the Round Table Groups of New Zealand.[2]

The memorandum was printed with blank sheets for written comments oppositethe text. Each student was to note his criticisms on these blank pages. Thenthey were to meet in their study groups to discuss these comments, in thehope of being able to draw up joint reports, or at least majority and minorityreports, on their conclusions. These reports were to be sent to Curtis, whowas to compile a comprehensive report on the whole imperial problem. Thiscomprehensive report would then be submitted to the groups in the same fashionand 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 fivemore in Australia. [3] The decision was made to do the same thing in Canadaand in England, and this was done by Curtis, Kerr, and apparently Dove during1910. On the trip to Canada, the missionaries carried with them a letterfrom Milner to his old friend Arthur J. Glazebrook, with whom he had remainedin close contact throughout the years since Glazebrook went to Canada foran English bank in 1893. The Round Table in 1941, writing of Glazebrook,said, "His great political hero was his friend Lord Milner, with whom hekept up a regular correspondence." As a result of this letter from Milner,Glazebrook undertook the task of founding Round Table Groups in Canada anddid this so well that he was for twenty years or more the real head of thenetwork of Milner Group units in the Dominion. He regularly wrote the Canadianarticles in The Round Table magazine. When he died, in 1940, The Round Tableobituary spoke of him as "one of the most devoted and loyal friends thatThe Round Table has ever known. Indeed- he could fairly claim to be one ofits founding fathers." In the 1930s he relinquished his central positionin the Canadian branch of the Milner Group to Vincent Massey, son-in-lawof George Parkin. Glazebrook's admiration for Parkin was so great that henamed his son George Parkin de Twenebrokes Glazebrook.[4] At the presenttime Vincent Massey and G. P. de T. Glazebrook are apparently the heads ofthe Milner Group organization in Canada, having inherited the position fromthe latter's father. Both are graduates of Balliol, Massey in 1913 and Glazebrookin 1924. Massey, a member of a very wealthy Canadian family, was lecturerin modern history at Toronto University in 1913-1915, and then served, duringthe war effort, as a staff officer in Canada, as associate secretary of theCanadian Cabinet's War Committee, and as secretary and director of the GovernmentRepatriation Committee. Later he was Minister without Portfolio in the CanadianCabinet (1924), a member of the Canadian delegation to the Imperial Conferenceof 1926, and first Canadian Minister to the United States (1926-1930). Hewas president of the National Liberal Federation of Canada in 1932-1935,Canadian High Commission in London in 1935-1946, and Canadian delegate tothe Assembly of the League of Nations in 1936. He has been for a long timegovernor of t e University of Toronto and of Upper Canada College (Parkin'sold school). He remains to this day one of the strongest supporters of OxfordUniversity and of a policy of close Canadian cooperation with the UnitedKingdom.

G. P. de T. Glazebrook, son of Milner's old friend Arthur J. Glazebrook andnamesake of Milner's closest collaborator in the Rhodes Trust, was born in1900 and studied at Upper Canada College, the University of Toronto, andBalliol. Since 1924 he has been teaching history at Toronto University, butsince 1942 has been on leave to the Dominion government, engaged in strategicintelligence work with the Department of External Affairs. Since 1948 hehas been on loan from the Department of External Affairs to the Departmentof 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 AmericanCentral Intelligence Agency. Glazebrook has written a number of historicalworks, including a History of Transportation in Canada (1938), Canadian ExternalAffairs, 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 incooperation with Curtis, Kerr, and Marris and on instructions from Milner,set up the Round Table organization in Canada in 1911. About a dozen unitswere established in various cities.

It was during the effort to extend the Round Table organization to Australiathat Curtis first met Lord Chelmsford. He was later Viceroy of India (in1916-1921), and there can be little doubt that the Milner Group was influentialin this appointment, for Curtis discussed the plans which eventually becamethe Government of India Act of 1919 with him before he went to India andconsulted with him in India on the same subject in 1916. [5]

From 1911 to 1913, Curtis remained in England, devoting himself to the reportscoming in from the Round Table Groups on imperial organization, while Kerrdevoted himself to the publication of The Round Table itself. This was anextraordinary magazine. The first issue appeared with the date 15 November1910. It had no names in the whole issue, either of the officers or of thecontributors 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 advertisem*nts, on the groundsthat anonymity gives the contributors greater in dependence and freedom.The real reasons, however, were much more practical than this and includedthe 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 articlesbeen signed. For example, Philip Kerr, during his editorship, always wrotethe leading article in every issue. In later years the anonymity was necessarybecause of the political prominence of some of the contributors. In general,the policy of the journal has been such that it has continued to concealthe identity of its writers until their deaths. Even then, they have neverbeen 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 reprintedin The Round Table after the author's death in 1940.

The Round Table was essentially the propaganda vehicle of a handful of peopleand could not have carried signed articles either originally, when they weretoo few, or later, when they were too famous. It was never intended to beeither a popular magazine or self-supporting, but rather was aimed at influencingthose 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 averagereader, as for those who write for the average reader. It is meant to bea storehouse of information of all kinds upon which publicists can draw.Its articles must be taken on their merits and as representing nothing beyondthe minds and information of the individual writer of each."[6]

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the first article of the first issue,called "Anglo-German Rivalry," was very anti-German and forms an interestingbit of evidence when taken in connection with Curtis's statement that theproblem of the Empire was raised in 1909 by the problem of what role SouthAfrica would play in a future war with Germany. The Group, in the periodbefore 1914, were clearly anti-German. This must be emphasized because ofthe mistaken idea which circulated after 1930 that the Cliveden group, especiallymen like Lord Lothian, were pro-German. They were neither anti-German in1910 nor pro-German in 1938, but pro-Empire all the time, changing theretheir attitudes on other problems as these problems affected the Empire.And it should be realized that their love for the Empire was not mere jingoismor flag-waving (things at which Kerr mocked within the Group)7 but was basedon the sincere belief that freedom, civilization, and human decency couldbest be advanced through the instrumentality of the British Empire.

In view of the specific and practical purpose of The Round Table-to federatethe Empire in order to ensure that the Dominions would join with the UnitedKingdom in a future war with Germany-the paper could not help being apropagandist organ, propagandist on a high level, it is true, but nonethelessa journal of opinion rather than a journal of information. Every generalarticle in the paper (excluding the reports from representatives in theDominions) was really an editorial- an unsigned editorial speaking for thegroup as a whole. By the 1920s these articles were declaring, in true editorialstyle, 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 thepropagation f any single point of view. Instead, they insisted that the purposeof th Group was to bring together persons of various points of view for purposesof self-education. This is not quite accurate. The Group did not containpersons of various points of view but rather persons of unusual unanimityof opinion, especially in regard to goals. There was a somewhat greaterdivergence in regard to methods, and the circulating of memoranda withinthe Group to evoke various comments was for the purpose of reaching someagreement on methods only-the goals being already given. In this, meetingsof the Group were rather like the meetings of the British Cabinet, althoughany normal Cabinet would contain a greater variety of opinion than did theusual meetings of the Group. In general, an expression of opinion by anyonemember of the Group sounded like an echo of any of the others. Their systemsof values were identical; the position of the British Commonwealth at theapex of that system was almost axiomatic; the important role played by moraland ideological influences in the Commonwealth and in the value system wasaccepted by all; the necessity of strengthening the bonds of the Commonwealthin view of the approaching crisis of the civilization of the West was acceptedby all; so also was the need for closer union with the United States. Therewas considerable divergence of opinion regarding the practicality of imperialfederation in the immediate future; there was some divergence of ideas regardingthe rate at which self-government should be extended to the various partsof the Empire (especially India). There was a slight difference of emphasison the importance of relations between the Commonwealth and the United States.But none of these differences of opinion was fundamental or important. Themost basic divergence within the Group during the first twenty years or sowas to be found in the field of economic ideas - a field in which the Groupas a whole was extremely weak, and also extremely conservative. This divergenceexisted, however, solely because of the extremely unorthodox character ofLord Milner's ideas. Milner's ideas (as expressed, for example, in his bookQuestions of the Hour, published in 1923) would have been progressive, evenunorthodox, in 1935. They were naturally ahead of the times in 1923, andthey were certainly far ahead of the ideas of the Group as a whole, for itseconomic ideas would have been old-fashioned in 1905. These ideas of theGroup (until 1931, at least) were those of late-nineteenth-century internationalbanking and financial )capitalism. The key to all economics and prosperitywas considered to rest in banking and finance. With "sound money," a balancedbudget, and the international gold standard, it was expected that prosperityand rising standards of living would follow automatically. These ideas werepropagated through The Round Table, in the period after 1912, in a seriesof articles written by Brand and subsequently republished under his name,with the title War and National Finance (1921). They are directly antitheticalto the ideas of Milner as revealed in his book published two years later.Milner insisted that financial questions must be subordinated to economicquestions and economic questions to political questions. As a result, ifa deflationary policy, initiated for financial reasons, has deleterious economicor political effects, it must be abandoned. Milner regarded the financialpolicy advocated by Brand in 1919 and followed by the British governmentfor the next twelve years as a disaster, since it led to unemployment,depression, and ruination of the export trade. Instead, Milner wanted toisolate the British economy from the world economy by tariffs and other barriersand encourage the economic development of the United Kingdom by a systemof government spending, self-regulated capital and labor, social welfare,etc. This program, which was based on "monopoly capitalism" or even "nationalsocialism" rather than "financial capitalism," as Brand's was, was embracedby most of the Milner Group after September 1931, when the ending of thegold standard in Britain proved once and for all that Brand's financial programof 1919 was a complete disaster and quite unworkable. As a result, in theyears after 1931 the businessmen of the Milner Group embarked on a policyof government encouragement of self-regulated monopoly capitalism. This wasrelatively easy for many members of the 'Group because of the distrust ofeconomic individualism which they had inherited from Toynbee and Milner.In April 1932, when P. Horsfall, manager of Lazard Brothers Bank (a colleagueof Brand), asked John Dove to write a defense of individualism in The RoundTable, Dove suggested that he write it himself, but, in reporting the incidentto Brand, he clearly indicated that the Group regarded individualism as obsolete.[8]

This difference of opinion between Milner and Brand on economic questionsis not of great importance. The important matter is that Brand's opinionprevailed within the Group from 1919 to 1931, while Milner's has grown inimportance from 1931 to the present. The importance of this can be seen inthe fact that the financial and economic policy followed by the Britishgovernment from 1919 to 1945 runs exactly parallel to the policy of the MilnerGroup. This is no accident but is the result, as we shall see, of the dominantposition held by the Milner Group in the councils of the Conservative-Unionistparty since the First World War.

During the first decade or so of its existence, The Round Table continuedto be edited and written by the inner circle of the Milner Group, chieflyby Lothian, Brand, Hichens, Grigg, Dawson, Fisher, and Dove. Curtis was toobusy with the other activities of the Group to devote much time to the magazineand had little to do with it until after the war. By that time a number ofothers 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 sameGroup that originally started the project in 1910 still controls it today,with the normal changes caused by death or old age. The vacancies resultingfrom these causes have been filled by new recruits from All Souls. It wouldappear that Coupland and Brand are the most influential figures today. Thefollowing list gives the editors of The Round Table from 1910 to the recentpast:

• 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 recentrecruit to the Milner Group, was taken from All Souls. Born in 1906, he wasat Balliol for three years (1925-1928) and on graduation obtained a fellowshipto All Souls, which he held for the regular term (1928-1935). This fellowshipopened to him the opportunities which he had the ability to exploit. On thestaff of the Economic Advisory Council from 1930 to 1931 and an importantmember of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, he was assistanteditor of The Round Table for three years (1931-1934) and became editor whenDove died in 1934. At the same time he wrote for Toynbee the economic sectionsof the Survey of International Affairs from 1929 on, publishing these ina 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, heleft The Round Table editorship and went to the Ministry of Information (whichwas controlled completely by the Milner Group) as director of the EmpireDivision. After two years in this post he was given the more critical positionof Reforms Commissioner in the Government of India for two years (1941-1942)and then was made assistant secretary and later head of the non-munitionsdivision of the Ministry of Production. This position was held until thewar ended, three years later. He then returned to private life as assistanteditor of /The Sunday Times. In addition to the writings already mentioned,he published The/Economics of a Changing World (1933) and The Empire in theWorld (1937), and edited The BritishCommonwealth and the Future (1939).

Vincent T. Harlow, born in 1898, was in the Royal Field Artillery in 1917-1919and then went to Brasenose, where he took his degree in 1923. He was lecturerin Modern History at University College, Southampton, in 1923-1927, and thencame into the magic circle of the Milner Group. He was keeper of Rhodes HouseLibrary in 1928-1938, Beit Lecturer in Imperial History in 1930-1935, andhas been Rhodes Professor of Imperial History at the University of Londonsince 1938. He was a member of the Imperial Committee of the Royal Instituteof International Affairs and, during the war, was head of the Empire InformationService at the Ministry of Information. He lives near Oxford, apparentlyin order to keep in contact with the Group.

In the decade 1910-1920, the inner circle of the Milner Group was busy withtwo other important activities in addition to The Round Table magazine. Thesewere studies of the problem of imperial federation and of the problem ofextending self-government to India. Both of these were in charge of LionelCurtis and continued with little interruption from the war itself. The RoundTable, which was in charge of Kerr, never interrupted its publication, butfrom 1915 onward it became a secondary issue to winning the war and makingthe peace. The problem of imperial federation will be discussed here andin Chapter 8, the war and the peace in Chapter 7, and the problem of Indiain Chapter 10.

During the period 1911-1913, as we have said, Curtis was busy in Englandwith the reports from the Round Table Groups in the Dominions in reply tohis printed memorandum. At the end of 1911 and again in 1913, he printedthese reports in two substantial volumes, without the names of the contributors.These volumes were never published, but a thousand copies of each weredistributed to the various groups. On the basis of these reports, Curtisdrafted a joint report, which was printed and circulated as each sectionwas completed. It soon became clear that there was no real agreement withinthe groups and that imperial federation was not popular in the Dominions.This was a bitter pill to the Group, especially to Curtis, but he continuedto work for several years more. In 1912, Milner and Kerr went to Canada andmade speeches to Round Table Groups and their associates. The following yearCurtis went to Canada to discuss the status of the inquiry on imperialorganization with the various Round Table Groups there and summed up theresults in a speech in Toronto in October 1913. [9] He decided to draw upfour reports as follows: (a) the existing situation; (b) a system involvingcomplete independence for the Dominions; (c) a plan to secure unity of foreignrelations by each Dominion's following a policy independent from but parallelto that of Britain itself; (d) a plan to reduce the United Kingdom to a Dominionand create a new imperial government over all the Dominions. Since the lastwas what Curtis wanted, he decided to write that report himself and allowsupporters of each of the other three to write theirs. A thousand copiesof this speech were circulated among the groups throughout the world.

When the war broke out in 1914, the reports were not finished, so it wasdecided to print the four already sent out, with a concluding chapter. Athousand copies of this, with the title Project of a Commonwealth, weredistributed among the groups. Then a popular volume on the subject, withthe title The Problem of the Commonwealth and Curtis's name as editor, waspublished (May 1916). Two months later, the earlier work (Pro;ect) was publishedunder 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 Empirewas to assume thirty-two years later. In the September 1916 issue of TheRound Table, Kerr published a statement on the relation ship of the two publishedvolumes to the Round Table Groups. Because of the paper shortage in England,Curtis in 1916 went to Canada and Australia to arrange for the separatepublication of The Problem of the Commonwealth in those countries. At thesame 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 emergedthe 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 federationof the Empire was impossible. As Curtis wrote in 1917 (in his Letter to thePeople of India): "The people of the Dominions rightly aspire to controltheir own foreign affairs and yet retain their status as British citizens.On the other hand, they detest the idea of paying taxes to any ImperialParliament, even to one upon which their own representatives sit. The inquiryconvinced me that, unless they sent members and paid taxes to an ImperialParliament, they could not control their foreign affairs and also remainBritish subjects. But I do not think that doctrine is more distasteful tothem than the idea of having anything to do with the Government of India."

Reluctantly Curtis and the others postponed the idea of a federated Empireand fell back on the idea of trying to hold the Empire together by the intangiblebonds of common culture and common outlook. This had originally (in Rhodesand Milner) been a supplement to the project of a federation. It now becamethe 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 schemefor organizing the whole world within a League of Nations. This idea hadalso been held by Rhodes and Milner, but in quite a different form. To theolder 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. Thissecond idea was fundamentally mystical. Curtis believed: "Die and ye shallbe born again." He sincerely felt that if the British Empire died in theproper way (by spreading liberty, brotherhood, and justice), it would beborn again in a higher level of existence-as a world community, or, as hecalled it, a "Commonwealth of Nations." It is not yet clear whether theresurrection envisaged by Curtis and his associates will occur, or whetherthey merely assisted at the crucifixion of the British Empire. The conductof 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 TableGroup, although their writings would indicate that they sometimes thoughtso. The federation which they envisaged had been worked out in detail bypersons close to the Cecil Bloc and was accepted by Milner and Rhodes astheir own chief goal in life.

The original impetus for imperial federation arose within the Liberal Partyas a reaction against the Little England doctrines that were triumphant inEngland before 1868. The original movement came from men like John StuartMill (whose arguments in support of the Empire are just like Curtis's) andEarl Grey (who was Colonial Secretary under Russell in 1846-1852). [10]

This movement resulted in the founding of the Royal Colonial Society (nowRoyal Empire Society) in 1868 and, as a kind of subsidiary of this, the ImperialFederation League in 1884. Many Unionist members of the Cecil Bloc, suchas 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 imperialproblem by creating a superimposed imperial legislative body and a centralexecutive over the whole Empire, including the United Kingdom. Seven yearslater, in "The Political Organization of the Empire," he divided authoritybetween this new federal authority and the Dominions by dividing the businessof government into imperial questions, local questions, and questions concerningboth levels. He then enumerated the matters that would be allotted to eachdivision, on a basis very similar to that later advocated by Curtis. Anotherspeaker, George Bourinot, in 1880, dealt with "The Natural Development ofCanada" in a fashion that sounds exactly like Curtis. [11]

These ideas and projects were embraced by Milner as his chief purpose inlife until, like Curtis, he came to realize their impracticality.12 Milner'sideas can be found in his speeches and letters, especially in two lettersof 1901 to Brassey and Parkin. Brassey had started a campaign for imperialfederation accompanied by devolution (that is, granting local issues to localbodies even within the United Kingdom) and the creation of an imperial parliamentto include representatives of the colonies. This imperial parliament woulddeal with imperial questions, while local parliaments would deal with localquestions. In pursuit of this project, Brassey published a pamphlet, in December1900, called A Policy on Which All Liberals May Unite and sent to Milneran invitation to join him. Milner accepted in February 1901, saying:

There are probably no two men who are more fully agreed in their generalview of Imperial policy [than we]. . . . It is clear to me that we requireseparate organs to deal with local home business and with Imperial business.The attempt to conduct both through one so-called Imperial Parliament isbreaking down. . . . Granted that we must have separate Parliaments for Imperialand Local business, I have been coming by a different road, and for somewhatdifferent 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 ImperialParliament, but. . . to create new bodies, or a new body under it for thelocal business of Great Britain and Ireland, leaving it to deal with thewider questions of Foreign Policy, the Defence of the Empire, and the relationsof the several parts. In that case, of course, the colonies would have tobe represented in the Imperial Parliament, which would thus become reallyImperial. One great difficulty, no doubt, is that, if this body were to bereally effective as an instrument of Imperial Policy, it would require tobe reduced in numbers. . . . The reduction in numbers of British membersmight no doubt be facilitated by the creation of local legislatures. . .. The time is ripe to make a beginning. . . . I wish Rosebery, who couldcarry through such a policy if any man could, was less pessimistic.

The idea of devolving the local business of the imperial parliament uponlocal legislative bodies for Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland was advocatedin a book by Lord Esher called After the War and in a book called The GreatOpportunity by Edward Wood (the future Lord Halifax). These books, in theirmain theme, were nothing more than a restatement of this aspect of the imperialfederation project. They were accompanied, on 4 June 1919, by a motion introducedin 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 theUnited Kingdom." Nothing came of this motion, just as nothing came of thefederation plans.

Milner's ideas on the latter subject were restated in a letter to Parkinon 18 September 1901:

The existing Parliaments, whether British or Colonial, are too small, andso are the statesmen they produce (except in accidental cases like Chamberlain),for such big issues. Until we get a real Imperial Council, not merely aConsultative, but first a Constitutional, and then an Executive Council withcontrol of all our world business, we shall get nothing. Look at the wayin 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 donot see the man to do it. Both you and I could help him enormously, almostdecisively indeed, for I have, and doubtless you have, an amount of illustrationand argument to bring to bear on the subject, drawn from practical experience,which would logically smash the opposition. Our difficulty in the old dayswas 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.[13]

The failure of imperial federation in the period 1910-1917 forced Parkinand Milner to fall back on ideological unity as achieved through the RhodesScholarships, just as the same event forced Curtis and others to fall backon the same goal as achieved through the Royal Institute of InternationalAffairs. All parties did this with reluctance. As Dove wrote to Brand in1923, "This later thing [the RIIA] is all right-it may help us to reach thatunity of direction in foreign policy we are looking for, if it becomes ahaunt of visitors from the Dominions; but Lionel's first love has still tobe won, and if, as often happens, accomplishment lessens appetite, and heturns again to his earlier and greater work, we shall all be the gainers."[14]

This shift from institutional to ideological bonds for uniting the Empiremakes it necessary that we should have a clear idea of the outlook of TheRound Table and the whole Milner Group. This outlook was well stated in anarticle 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 bindit together must be moral and not based on considerations of material advantageor even of defense. This emphasis on moral considerations, rather than economicor strategic, is typical of the Group as a whole and is found in Milner andeven in Rhodes. Professional politicians, bureaucrats, utilitarians, andmaterialist social reformers are criticized for their failure to "appealconvincingly as an ideal of moral welfare to the ardour and imagination ofa democratic people." They are also criticized for failure to see that thisis the basis on which the Empire was reared.

The development of the British Empire teaches how moral conviction and devotionto duty have inspired the building of the structure. Opponents of Imperialismare wont to suggest that the story will not bear inspection, that it is largelya record of self-aggrandizement and greed. Such a charge betrays ignoranceof its history. . . . The men who have laboured most enduringly at the fabricof Empire were not getters of wealth and plunderers of spoil. It was dueto their strength of character and moral purpose that British rule in Indiaand Egypt has become the embodiment of order and justice. . . . Duty is anI bstract term, but the facts it signifies are the most concrete and realin our experience. The essential thing is to grasp its meaning as a motivepower in men's lives. [This was probably from Kerr, but could have been Toynbeeor Milner speaking. The writer continued:] The end of the State is to makemen, and its strength is measured not in terms of defensive armaments oreconomic prosperity but by the moral personality of its citizens. . . . Thefunction of the State is positive and ethical, to secure for its individualmembers that they shall not merely live but live well. Social reformers areprone to insist too strongly on an ideal of material comfort for the people.. . . A life of satisfaction depends not on higher wages or lower pricesor on leisure for recreation, but on work that calls into play the highercapacities of man's nature. . . . The cry of the masses should be not forwages or comforts or even liberty, but for opportunities for enterprise andresponsibility. A policy for closer union in the Empire is full of significancein relation to this demand. . . . There is but one way of promise. It isthat the peoples of the Empire shall realize their national unity and drawfrom that ideal an inspiration to common endeavour in the fulfilment of themoral obligations which their membership of the Empire entails. The recognitionof common Imperial interests is bound to broaden both their basis of publicaction and their whole view of life. Public life is ennobled by great causesand by these alone. . . . Political corruption, place-hunting, and partyintrigue have their natural home in small communities where attention isconcentrated upon local interests. Great public causes call into being theintellectual and moral potentialities of people. . . . The phrases "nationalcharacter," "national will," and "national personality" are no empty catchwords.Everyone knows that esprit de corps is not a fiction but a reality; thatthe spirit animating a college or a regiment is something that cannot bemeasured in terms of the private contributions of the individual members.. . . The people of the Empire are face to face with a unique and an historicopportunity I It is their mission to base the policy of a Great Empire onthe foundations of freedom and law. . . . It remains for them to crown thestructure by the institution of a political union that shall give solidarityto the Empire as a whole. Duty and the logic of facts alike point this goalof their endeavour.

In this article can be found, at least implicitly, all the basic ideas ofthe Milner Group: their suspicion of party politics; their emphasis on moralqualities and the cement of common outlook for linking people together; theirconviction that the British Empire is the supreme moral achievement of man,but an achievement yet incomplete and still unfolding; their idea that thehighest moral goals are the development of personality through devotion toduty and service under freedom and law; their neglect, even scorn, for economicconsiderations; and their feeling for the urgent need to persuade othersto accept their point of view in order to allow the Empire to achieve thedestiny for which they yearn .

The Milner Group is a standing refutation of the Marxist or Leninistinterpretations of history or of imperialism. Its members were motivatedonly slightly by materialistic incentives, and their imperialism was motivatednot at all by the desire to preserve or extend capitalism. On the contrarytheir economic ideology, in the early stages at least, was more socialisticthan Manchester in its orientation. To be sure, it was an undemocratic kindof socialism, which was willing to make many sacrifices to the well-beingof the masses of the people but reluctant to share with these masses politicalpower that might allow them to seek their own well-being. This socialisticleaning was more evident in the earlier (or Balliol) period than in the later(or New College) period, and disappeared almost completely when Lothian andBrand replaced Esher, Grey, and Milner at the center of the Group. Esherregarded the destruction of the middle class as inevitable and felt thatthe future belonged to the workers and an administrative state. He dedicatedhis 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 ofthe same year, he wrote to his son, the present Viscount Esher: "There arethings that cannot be confiscated by the Smillies and Sidney Webbs. Theseseem to me the real objectives." Even earlier, Arnold Toynbee was a socialistof sorts and highly critical of the current ideology of liberal capitalismas proclaimed by the high priests of the Manchester School. Milner gave sixlectures on socialism in Whitechapel in 1882 (published in 1931 in The NationalReview). Both Toynbee and Milner worked intermittently at social serviceof a mildly socialistic kind, an effort that resulted in the founding ofToynbee Hall as a settlement house in 1884. As chairman of the board of InternalRevenue in 1892-1897, Milner drew up Sir William Harcourt's budget, whichinaugurated the inheritance tax. In South Africa, he was never moved bycapitalistic motives, placing a heavy profits tax on the output of the Randmines to finance social improvements, and considering with objective calmthe question of nationalizing the railroads or even the mines. Both Toynbeeand Milner were early suspicious of the virtues of free trade - not, however,because tariffs could provide high profits for industrial concerns but becausetariffs and imperial preference could link the Empire more closely into economicunity. In his later years, Milner became increasingly radical, a developmentthat did not fit any too well with the conservative financial outlook ofBrand, or even Hichens. As revealed in his book Questions of the Hour (1923),Milner was a combination of technocrat and guild socialist and objectedvigorously to the orthodox financial policy of deflation, balanced budget,gold standard, and free international exchange advocated by the Group after1918. This orthodox policy, inspired by Brand and accepted by The Round Tableafter 1918, was regarded by Milner as an invitation to depression, unemployment,and the dissipation of Britain's material and moral resources. On this pointthere can be no doubt that Milner was correct. Not himself a trained economist,Milner, nevertheless, saw that the real problems were of a technical andmaterial nature and that Britain's ability to produce goods should be limitedonly by the real supply of knowledge, labor, energy, and materials and notby the artificial limitations of a deliberately restricted supply of moneyand credit. This point of view of Milner's was not accepted by the Groupuntil after 1931, and not as completely as by Milner even then. The pointof view of the Group, at least in the period 1918-1931, was the point ofview of the international bankers with whom Brand, Hichens, and others wereso closely connected. This point of view, which believed that Britain's prewarfinancial supremacy could be restored merely by reestablishing the prewarfinancial system, with the pound sterling at its prewar parity, failed completelyto see the changed conditions that made all efforts to restore the prewarsystem impossible. The Group's point of view is clearly revealed in The RoundTable articles of the period. In the issue of December 1918, Brand advocatedthe financial policy which the British government followed, with such disastrousresults, for the next thirteen years. He wrote:

That nation will recover quickest after the war which corrects soonest anydepreciation in currency, reduces by production and saving its inflated credit,brings down its level of prices, and restores the free import and exportof gold. . . . With all our wealth of financial knowledge and experiencebehind us it should be easy for us to steer the right path - though it willnot be always a pleasant one- amongst the dangers of the future. Everyconsideration leads to the view that the restoration of the gold standard-whetheror not it can be achieved quickly-should be our aim. Only by that means canwe be secure that our level of prices shall be as low as or lower than pricesin other countries, and on that condition depends the recovery of our exporttrade and the prevention of excessive imports. Only by that means can weprovide against and abolish the depreciation of our currency which, thoughthe [existing] prohibition against dealings in gold prevents our measuringit, almost certainly exists, and safeguard ourself against excessive grantsof credit.

He then outlined a detailed program to contract credit, curtail governmentspending, raise taxes, curtail imports, increase exports, etc.[15] Hichens,who, as an industrialist rather than a banker, was not nearly so conservativein financial matters as Brand, suggested that the huge public debt of 1919be met by a capital levy, but, when Brand's policies were adopted by thegovernment, Hichens went along with them and sought a way out for his ownbusiness by reducing costs by "rationalization of production."

These differences of opinion on economic matters within the Group did notdisrupt the Group, because it was founded on political rather than economicideas and its roots were to be found in ancient Athens rather than in modernManchester. The Balliol generation, from Jowett and Nettleship, and the NewCollege generation, from Zimmern, obtained an idealistic picture of classicalGreece which left them nostalgic for the fifth century of Hellenism and drovethem to seek to reestablish that ancient fellowship of intellect and patriotismin modern Britain. The funeral oration of Pericles became their politicalcovenant with destiny. Duty to the state and loyalty to one's fellow citizensbecame the chief values of life. But, realizing that the jewel of Hellenismwas destroyed by its inability to organize any political unit larger thana single city, the Milner Group saw the necessity of political organizationin order to insure the continued existence of freedom and higher ethicalvalues and hoped to be able to preserve the values of their day by organizingthe whole world around the British Empire.

Curtis puts this quite clearly in The Commonwealth of Nations (1916), wherehe says:

States, whether autocracies or commonwealths, ultimately rest on duty, noton self-interest or force. . . . The quickening principle of a state is asense of devotion, an adequate recognition somewhere in the minds of itssubjects 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, likethat of the marriage tie, is at root not contractual but sacramental. Itsfoundation is not self-interest, but rather some sense of obligation, howeverconceived, which is strong enough to over-master self-interest.

History for this Group, and especially for Curtis, presented itself as anage-long struggle between the principles of autocracy and the principlesof commonwealth, between the forces of darkness and the forces of light,between Asiatic theocracy and European freedom. This view of history, foundedon the work of Zimmern, E. A. Freeman, Lord Bryce, and A. V. Dicey, feltthat the distinguishing mark between the two hosts could be found in theirviews 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 divineand 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, spawningsuch offspring as the Persian Wars, the Punic Wars, and the struggles ofBritain with the forces of Philip II, of Louis XIV, of Napoleon, and of WilhelmII. Thus, to this Group, Britain stood as the defender of all that was fineor civilized in the modern world, just as Athens had stood for the same valuesin the ancient world. 17 Britain's mission, under this interpretation, wasto carry freedom and light (that is, the principles of commonwealth) againstthe forces of theocracy and darkness (that is, autocracy) in Asia - and evenin Central Europe. For this Group regarded the failure of France or Germanyto utilize the English idea of "supremacy of law" (as described by Diceyin his The Law of the Constitution, 1885) as proof that these countries werestill immersed, at least partially, in the darkness of theocratic law. Theslow spread of English political institutions to Europe as well as Asia inthe period before the First World War was regarded by the Group as proofboth of their superiority and of the possibility of progress. In Asia andAmerica, at least, England's civilizing mission was to be carried out byforce, if necessary, for "the function of force is to give moral ideas timeto take root." Asia thus could be compelled to accept civilization, a procedurejustifiable to the Group on the grounds that Asians are obviously betteroff 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. Tobe sure, the blessings to be extended to the less fortunate peoples of theworld did not include democracy. To Milner, to Curtis, and apparently tomost 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 "havesome intellectual capacity for judging the public interest, and, what isno less important, some moral capacity for treating it as paramount to theirown."

This disdain for unrestricted democracy was quite in accordance with theideas revealed by Milner's activities in South Africa and with the Greekideals absorbed at Balliol or New College. However, the restrictions on democracyaccepted by the Milner Group were of a temporary character, based on thelack of education and background of those who were excluded from politicalparticipation. It was not a question of blood or birth, for these men werenot racists.

This last point is important because of the widespread misconception thatthese people were racially intolerant. They never were; certainly those ofthe inner circle never were. On the contrary, they were ardent advocatesof a policy of education and uplift of all groups, so that ultimately allgroups could share in political life and in the rich benefits of the Britishway of life. To be sure, the members of the Group did not advocate the immediateextension of democracy and self-government to all peoples within the Empire,but these restrictions were based not on color of skin or birth but uponcultural outlook and educational background. Even Rhodes, who is widely regardedas a racist because his scholarships were restricted to candidates from theNordic countries, was not a racist. He restricted his scholarships to thesecountries because he felt that they had a background sufficiently hom*ogeneousto allow the hope that educational interchange could link them together toform the core of the worldwide system which he hoped would ultimately comeinto existence. Beyond this, Rhodes insisted that there must be no restrictionsplaced on the scholarships on a basis of race, religion, skin color, or nationalorigin. [18] In his ownlife, Rhodes cared nothing about these things. Someof his closest friends were Jews (like Beit), and in three of his wills heleft Lord Rothschild as his trustee, in one as his sole trustee. Milner andthe other members felt similarly. Lionel Curtis, in his writings, makes perfectlyclear both his conviction that character is acquired by training rather thaninnate ability and his insistence on tolerance in personal contact betweenmembers of different races. In his The Commonwealth of Nations (1916) hesays: "English success in planting North America and the comparative failureof their rivals must, in fact, be traced to the respective merits not ofbreed but of institutions"; and again: "The energy and intelligence whichhad saved Hellas [in the Persian Wars] was the product of her free institutions."In another work he protests against English mistreatment of natives in Indiaand states emphatically that it must be ended. He says: "The conduct on thepart of Europeans. . . is more than anything else the root cause of Indianunrest. . . I am strongly of opinion that governors should be vested withpowers to investigate judicially cases where Europeans are alleged to haveoutraged Indian feelings. Wherever a case of wanton and unprovoked insultsuch as those I have cited is proved, government should have the power toorder the culprit to leave the country. . . . A few deportations would sooneffect a definite change for the better."[19] That Dove felt similarly isclear 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 toall parts of the Empire. To be sure, they believed that this was a path tobe followed slowly, but their reluctance was measured by the inability of"backward" peoples to understand the principles of a commonwealth, not byreluctance to extend to them either democracy or self-government.

Curtis defined the distinction between a commonwealth and a despotism inthe following terms: "The rule of law as contrasted with the rule of anindividual is the distinguishing mark of a commonwealth. In despotism governmentrests on the authority of the ruler or of the invisible and uncontrollablepower behind him. In a commonwealth rulers derive their authority from thelaw and the law from a public opinion which is competent to change it."Accordingly, "the institutions of a commonwealth cannot be successfully workedby peoples whose ideas are still those of a theocratic or patriarchal society.The premature extension of representative institutions throughout the Empirewould be the shortest road to anarchy."[20] The people must first be trainedto understand and practice the chief principles of commonwealth, namely thesupremacy of law and the subjection of the motives of self-interest and materialgain to the sense of duty to the interests of the community as a whole. Curtisfelt that such an educational process was not only morally necessary on thepart of Britain but was a practical necessity, since the British could notexpect to keep 430 million persons in subjection forever but must ratherhope to educate them up to a level where they could appreciate and cherishBritish ideals. In one book he says: "The idea that the principle of thecommonwealth implies universal suffrage betrays an ignorance of its realnature. That principle simply means that government rests on the duty ofthe citizens to each other, and is to be vested in those who are capableof setting public interest before their own." [21] 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 whoare fit for it, self-government is a question not of privilege but ratherof obligation. It is duty, not interest, which impels men to freedom, andduty, not interest, is the factor which turns the scale in human affairs."India is included in this evolutionary process, for Curtis wrote: " A despoticgovernment might long have closed India to Western ideas. But a commonwealthis a living thing. It cannot suffer any part of itself to remain inert. Tolive it must move, and move in every limb. . . . Under British rule Westernideas will continue to penetrate and disturb Oriental society, and whetherthe new spirit ends in anarchy or leads to the establishment of a higherorder depends upon how far the millions of India can be raised to a fullerand more rational conception of the ultimate foundations upon which the dutyof 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 sharedby the whole inner circle of the Group. Dove, writing to Brand from Indiain 1919, is favorable to reform and says: "Lionel is right. You can't dama world current. There is, I am convinced, 'purpose' under such things. Allthat we can do is to try to turn the flood into the best channel." In thesame letter he said: "Unity will, in the end, have to be got in some otherway. . . . Love-call it, if you like, by a longer name-is the only thingthat can make our post-war world go round, and it has, I believe, somethingto say here too. The future of the Empire seems to me to depend on how farwe are able to recognize this. Our trouble is that we start some way behindscratch. Indians must always find it hard to understand us." And the futureLord Lothian, ordering an article on India for The Round Table from arepresentative in India, wrote: "We want an article in The Round Table andI suggest to you that the main conclusion which the reader should draw fromit should be that the responsibility rests upon him of seeing that the Indiandemands are sympathetically handled without delay after the war. "[22]

What this Group feared was that the British Empire would fail to profit fromthe lessons they had discerned in the Athenian empire or in the AmericanRevolution. Zimmern had pointed out to them the sharp contrast between thehigh idealism of Pericles's funeral oration and the crass tyranny of theAthenian empire. They feared that the British Empire might fall into thesame difficulty and destroy British idealism and British liberties by thetyranny necessary to hold on to a reluctant Empire. And any effort to holdan empire by tyranny they regarded as doomed to failure. Britain would bedestroyed, as Athens was destroyed, by powers more tyrannical than herself.And, still drawing parallels with ancient Greece, the Group feared that allculture and civilization would go down to destruction because of our inabilityto construct some kind of political unit larger than the national state,just as Greek culture and civilization in the fourth century B.C. went downto destruction because of the Greeks' inability to construct some kind ofpolitical unit larger than the city-state. This was the fear that had animatedRhodes, and it was the same fear that was driving the Milner Group to transformthe British Empire into a Commonwealth of Nations and then place that systemwithin a League of Nations. In 1917, Curtis wrote in his Letter to the Peopleof India: "The world is in throes which precede creation or death. Our wholerace has outgrown the merely national state, and as surely as day followsnight or night the day, will pass either to a Commonwealth of Nations orelse 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 Groupthe dangers of trying to rule the Empire from London: to tax withoutrepresentation could only lead to disruption. Yet it was no longer possiblethat 45 million in the United Kingdom could tax them selves for the defenseof 435 million in the British Empire. What, then, was the solution? The MilnerGroup's efforts to answer this question led eventually, as we shall see inChapter 8, to the present Commonwealth of Nations, but before we leave TheRound Table, a few words should be said about Lord Milner's personal connectionwith the Round Table Group and the Group's other connections in the fieldof journalism and publicity.

Milner was the creator of the Round Table Group (since this is but anothername for the Kindergarten) and remained in close personal contact with itfor the rest of his life. In the sketch of Milner in the Dictionary of NationalBiography, written by Basil Williams of the Kindergarten, we read: "He wasalways ready to discuss national questions on a non-party basis, joiningwith former members of his South African 'Kindergarten' in their 'moot,'from which originated the political review, The Round Table, and in a moreheterogeneous society, the 'Coefficients,' where he discussed social andimperial problems with such curiously assorted members as L. S. Amery, H.G. Wells, (Lord) Haldane, Sir Edward Grey, (Sir) Michael Sadler, BernardShaw, J. L. Garvin, William Pember Reeves, and W. A. S. Hewins." In the obituaryof Hichens, as already indicated, we find in reference to the Round Tablethe sentence: "Often at its head sat the old masters of the Kindergarten,Lord Milner and his successor, Lord Selborne, close friends and allies ofHichens to the end." And in the obituary of Lord Milner in The Round Tablefor June 1925, we find the following significant passage:

The founders and the editors of The Round Table mourn in a very special sensethe death of Lord Milner. For with him they have lost not only a much belovedfriend, but one whom they have always regarded as their leader. Most of themhad the great good fortune to serve under him in South Africa during or afterthe South African war, and to learn at firsthand from him something of thegreat ideals which inspired him. From those days at the very beginning ofthis century right up to the present time, through the days of Crown ColonyGovernment in the Transvaal and Orange Free State, of the making of the SouthAfrican constitution, and through all the varied and momentous history ofthe British Empire in the succeeding fifteen years, they have had the advantageof 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 himselfas the leader to whom, above everyone else, they looked. It is of melancholyinterest to recall that Lord Milner had undertaken to come on May 13, thevery day of his death, to a meeting specially to discuss with them SouthAfrican 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 variousinstruments of the Milner Group are able to cooperate with one another.

The Times and The Round Table are not the only publications which have beencontrolled by the Milner Group. At various times in the past, the Group hasbeen very influential on the staffs of the Quarterly Review, The NineteenthCentury and After, The Economist, and the Spectator. Anyone familiar withthese 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 staffsor even as to the names of their editors. The extent of the Milner Group'sinfluence and the periods during which it was active cannot be examined here.

The Milner Group was also very influential in an editorial fashion in regardto a series of excellent and moderately priced volumes known as The HomeUniversity Library. Any glance at the complete list of volumes in this serieswill reveal that a large number of the names are those of persons mentionedin this study. The influence of the Group on The Home University Librarywas chiefly exercised through H. A. L. Fisher, a member of the inner circleof 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'sold connections with adult education and working-class schools (a connectionderived 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 ourmasters." In this connection, several members of the Round Table Group playedan active role in the Oxford Summer School for Working Class Students in1913. 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, "addressedby members of the Round Table Group, and others, on Imperial and ForeignProblems" (to quote A. L. Smith again). As a result, a plan was drawn upon 30 July 1914 to present similar programs in the 110 tutorial classes existingin industrial centers. The outbreak of war prevented most of this programfrom being carried out. After the war ended, the propaganda work among theBritish working classes became less important, for various reasons, of whichthe chief were that working-class ears were increasingly monopolized by LabourParty speakers and that the Round Table Group were busy with other problemslike the League of Nations, Ireland, and the United States. [23]

If you need the references then you'll have to buy the book! - which is presentlyeasy online - ed.

Main Bilderberger page

The site Index